Subj : GCC confusion ..
To : Bob Jones
From : Mike Luther
Date : Thu Jul 31 2003 05:54 am
Well Bob .. I can tell this is going to be a long night...
\ /
(?) Puppy contemplating darkness.
@ @
BJ> Also, I'm now trying to get the GCC 3.2.1 package fixed
BJ> up and running here.... I noticed the install script
BJ> didn't give me the environment setup the way I need it....
BJ> I have fun, cause I have EMX loaded on my boot partion (normally C:),
BJ> and I do *not* want the compiler on that partition due
BJ> to space issues (although it would probably work
BJ> out....
That's sort of my same wishumz.
BJ> Yes, I need to re-install the GCC 3.2.1 because I was
BJ> "testing" and need to place it else where....
OH! You got there the same sort of way I did with DJGPP! My assigned home for
C/C++ work was planned to be drive E: Watcomm and VAC++ were both stuck there.
I originally did not want the C/C++ dev work on C:, but got sentenced to that
with the DJGPP or whatever 'test' install.
Tell you what, I wanna do the same thing you wanna do. When you figure out
what has to be modified in the 'install script' would you be so kind as to post
it here?
BJ> When you figure it out, let me know.... Then maybe I
BJ> can try to get the Maximus / Squish / SqaFix ports
BJ> that we're (attempting to) compiling using GCC on
BJ> Linux to see if I can get that version to also compile
BJ> (and run) under OS/2 using GCC 3.2.1.... That would
BJ> be nice.... But it could get interesting....
@ @
(~) So I am guinness puppy?
/ \
. . < -- eyes rolling out here..
Well there may be real reason to go after this. Hold thought a moment.
BJ> We're close to being able to compile SqaFix under Linux....
BJ> Still working out code clean up so that SqaFix can be
BJ> GPL'ed. Able to run test compiles of that code using
BJ> GCC under OS/2 would be nice....
Here is my thought and questions.
IBM has given up, per what I read in the MOZ forums, on the VAC++ compiler.
They are now actively moving to GCC for version 1.5. Am I correct in my
thinking that the latest version 2.0.1 of IBM WEB BROWSER was still compiled,
though, with VAC++? And, per the comments in the MOZ forums, there is a good
bit of instability, if we can talk that way, about the new work now having been
done on Version 1.4 ... and on into 1.5 as MOZ, right?
So are we saying, in a pointed sort of way, that, perhaps, one of the real
reasons that IBM has been investing so much time in MOZ and so on, is to define
its way out of the compiler business with GCC?
Which GCC? This GCC?
More to the point at which I really want to think about! As you probably know
this whole issue of OS/2 as we turned the corner toward MCP1/MCP2 with the
convergence of all the planets ... was handled with a 'new' compiler. A
substantial amount of TestCase work, which is gleanable from the changes in the
TestCase kernel revisions .. has to do, I think, from this compiler shift. It
is certainly well known in the Fix Pack comments drifting about.
Which compiler? This compiler?
I personally hold that the only way any operating system ever becomes or stays
'in status', if you will, is via the level of usefulness of one or more
COMPILER(s) which can be used with it.
You bet I'm interested in the MAX project to port to Linux with GCC! This is
like the dying man who asked for a Priest, a Rabbi, and a Minister! With all
due appologies to the real Nurse Ratchett, grin, when the nurse asked, "Why?"
He answered, "Well, I'm just hedging my bets!"
Now should I remove DJGPP and install this one? Is that a good bet? Should I
put 'im on Drive E:? With your help, of course, no?
If so, I go in and try surgery on C:, I guess..
\
(@)> Puppy contemplating LARGE hole in drive C:.
~ ~ | |
Is this the right compiler for the future of all OS/2?
--> Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)
Mike @ 1:117/3001
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Ziplog Public Port (1:117/3001)
