GCC vs Watcom compiler thoughts
Mike Luther
now have about 150 of them 'ported' to Watcom version 11. I've fully paid for
all of this and have all the manuals, fixes and so on. Because the project I
have is so huge as to total source code and library modules, I've not attempted
to finish the source code function porting, in that I've hit a couple very
significant techniques that do not appear to be easily ported to C/C++. These
are highly string and string array issues.
As well, I've already learned that my roughly 1,400,000 lines of source will
expand to over 6,000,000 lines of source after the move to C/C++. Which is a
massive jump in thinking and administrative overview, sigh.
Anyway....
At this point I'm interested in possibly going ahead to finish the function
cross-port work to C/C++. But now comes the issue that both Watcom C/C++ as
well as GCC are both in focus for platforms which really need to be in OS/2 as
well as Linux (AIX/UNIX also?) and, strangely, still DOS. I have no interest
at all in Windows op system work whatsoever.
Now .. I've been watching the issues, as a complete outsider, to GCC. I have
the GCC 3.3.5 package complete here, I think, about 41MB back from 6-13-2007.
I also have Paul Smedley's 'latest' 4.3.2 of 11-16-08 at just over 27MB,
Looking inside these archives, I gather that if a 'correct' installation of the
GCC toolset is done, I'll have to first install the 3.3.5 package. Then I
think I gather that the 4.3.2 package is an 'over-install' on that. Is this
the general sense? If so, about what is the total number of MB that this
entire toolset will consume on a given drive? Recall that as I still need DOS
service, as best I know this, I still must maintain whatever in a 2GB hard disp
partition, which in my case is solidly HPFS for OS/2 at this rate.
The master alternative compiler development partition on my major development
system has about 400MB free space out of this 2GB partition at this point. It
also holds more that the C/C++ tools, such as the IBM Devkit plus DB2 as well,
for example. Assuming that only the compilation of whatever I do is really
needed for my work, that then I can simply move the executable(s) as needed to
a completely different partition of testing and proof, or point the
executable(s) to other partitions for the required interface files and data, is
this anywhere realistic for adding the GCC toolset?
As well, what are the thoughts about using GCC as opposed to the Watcom now out
to 1.8a release level past my working version 11 code?
Thoughts?
Thanks!
--
--> Sleep well; OS2's still awake! ;)
Mike Luther
Paul Smedley
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:48:01 UTC, Mike Luther <mike....@ziplog.com>
wrote:
> Now .. I've been watching the issues, as a complete outsider, to GCC. I have
> the GCC 3.3.5 package complete here, I think, about 41MB back from 6-13-2007.
> I also have Paul Smedley's 'latest' 4.3.2 of 11-16-08 at just over 27MB,
> Looking inside these archives, I gather that if a 'correct' installation of the
> GCC toolset is done, I'll have to first install the 3.3.5 package. Then I
> think I gather that the 4.3.2 package is an 'over-install' on that. Is this
> the general sense? If so, about what is the total number of MB that this
> entire toolset will consume on a given drive? Recall that as I still need DOS
> service, as best I know this, I still must maintain whatever in a 2GB hard disp
> partition, which in my case is solidly HPFS for OS/2 at this rate.
Yes this is correct at this point in time. At some point, I'll
probably do a release that includes the necessary libc stuff as well
as the GCC stuff so is a 'complete' package
Cheers,
Paul.