On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Michael Thayer <[email protected]>wrote:
I'm curious, why move from bcc (ancient, unmaintained for ages) to >> Watcom (which looked to me barely maintained and developed) instead of >> something more modern like gcc, clang, etc? I guess Watcom has some >> unique features that make it more fit for BIOS' compilation, but other >> than having read Watcom was used in the past for embedded because it >> generated small code, I cannot think of anything. >> >> (and please let's not make this a licenses, freedom, etc discussion: I'm >> asking a purely technical question) >> > To cut a long story short, Watcom was the free-est compiler available > which could generate decent 16-bit x86 code. bcc was always rather painful > to use due to it's very limited support of 16-bit Intel memory models, and > eventually the pain got too much. > What would happen if some other compiler was used? Have you tried faucc? http://packages.debian.org/sid/faucc http://www3.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/Research/FAUmachine/ Or is a C++ compiler required? -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
_______________________________________________ vbox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.virtualbox.org/mailman/listinfo/vbox-dev
