64 bit hardware

len lopez

unread,

Dec 10, 2010, 3:50:42 PM12/10/10

to

I have been using Openwatcom version 1.7, and plan to update to 1.9. I
also expect to update my hardware to include a 32/64 bit processor. Does
the OW 1.9 software run properly on the newer hardware? Does it compile
for 64 bits or does it produce 32 bit code that will run transparently
on the 64 bit machines. If the latter, do we pay a significant
performance penalty?

Len

Hans-Bernhard Bröker

unread,

Dec 10, 2010, 4:52:24 PM12/10/10

to

On 10.12.2010 21:50, len lopez wrote:
> I have been using Openwatcom version 1.7, and plan to update to 1.9. I
> also expect to update my hardware to include a 32/64 bit processor. Does
> the OW 1.9 software run properly on the newer hardware?

That depends. On that hardware you could run a wide variety of
operating systems, and you haven't so much as dropped a hint which of
those you plan on using.

OW consists of 32-bit executables for a variety of operating systems,
and it produces both 16-bit and 32-bit code for an even larger variety
of platforms.

32-bit code doesn't generally pay any significant speed penalty unless
you intend to use exorbitantly large quantities of something.

Peter C. Chapin

unread,

Dec 10, 2010, 8:09:39 PM12/10/10

to

On 2010-12-10 16:52, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:

> 32-bit code doesn't generally pay any significant speed penalty unless
> you intend to use exorbitantly large quantities of something.

I should add that if you are using a 64 bit operating system, you can't
run the 16 bit programs generated by Open Watcom (or any other 16 bit
programs for that matter). At least this is definitely true for 64 bit
Windows 7.

Of course this only matters if you want to develop for 16 bit targets
(and intend to test your code on your development station).

Peter

len lopez

unread,

Dec 11, 2010, 1:35:03 PM12/11/10

to

I intend to use XP and Windows 7 to generate 32 bit code for XP and
Windows 7.

I am just beginning to build a new platform. It will be based on an AMD
Phenom xxx processor or an Intel core I7 processor. These are 32/64 bit
processors . That is what brought the question up in the first place.

Len
------

Peter C. Chapin

unread,

Dec 11, 2010, 1:47:17 PM12/11/10

to

On 2010-12-11 13:35, len lopez wrote:

> I intend to use XP and Windows 7 to generate 32 bit code for XP and
> Windows 7.
>
> I am just beginning to build a new platform. It will be based on an AMD
> Phenom xxx processor or an Intel core I7 processor. These are 32/64 bit
> processors . That is what brought the question up in the first place.

Sounds like an interesting project. Unfortunately Open Watcom does not
currently do 64 bit code generation for the Intel64 architecture.

Peter

dpb

unread,

Dec 11, 2010, 1:54:13 PM12/11/10

to

Peter C. Chapin wrote:
...
> ... Open Watcom does not

> currently do 64 bit code generation for the Intel64 architecture.

...

Or any other architecture, either, afaik? :)

--

len lopez

unread,

Dec 11, 2010, 5:56:30 PM12/11/10

to

I really don't care if Watcom doesn't generate 64 bit code. I just
wanted to be sure the current version of the Watcom tools would work and
generate 32 bit code. I intend to install a 32/64 processor because I
see that there processors will be the standard very soon.

Len

dpb

unread,

Dec 11, 2010, 11:05:23 PM12/11/10

to

Unless you're needing something that's unique in the Watcom extensions,
despite that it is a fine F77+ compiler, I'd recommend using one of the
other alternatives for Fortran. gfortran or g95 both are F95+ and
continue progress towards current Fortran Standard compliance while
Watcom remains (and afaict will remain) stuck where it is.

Again, that's nothing against OW per se, just that there seems to me no
reason to bind oneself to a static, more and more outdated version of
the language unless something is forcing that decision that can't be
changed.

$0.02, imo, ymmv, etc., etc., etc., ...

--

Peter C. Chapin

unread,

Dec 12, 2010, 10:01:46 AM12/12/10

to

On 2010-12-11 13:54, dpb wrote:

>> ... Open Watcom does not
>> currently do 64 bit code generation for the Intel64 architecture.
> ...
>
> Or any other architecture, either, afaik? :)

There is an Alpha code generator in the source tree, but it is not part
of the distribution. There is also a MIPS code generator in the source
tree, but I'm not sure if it is 64 bit or not.

Peter

Peter C. Chapin

unread,

Dec 12, 2010, 10:06:38 AM12/12/10

to

On 2010-12-11 23:05, dpb wrote:

> Unless you're needing something that's unique in the Watcom extensions,
> despite that it is a fine F77+ compiler, I'd recommend using one of the
> other alternatives for Fortran. gfortran or g95 both are F95+ and
> continue progress towards current Fortran Standard compliance while
> Watcom remains (and afaict will remain) stuck where it is.

There have been a few attempts to modernize the Fortran compiler, but
none of them have gone very far. We need more human resources. A person
(or two or three) with the time and inclination to dig into it could
really help getting things moving in that area again. Alas, I know very
well that finding a person with the magic combination of available time,
inclination, and skills isn't easy.

Peter

dpb

unread,

Dec 12, 2010, 3:00:42 PM12/12/10

to

Peter C. Chapin wrote:
...

> There have been a few attempts to modernize the Fortran compiler, but
> none of them have gone very far. We need more human resources. A person
> (or two or three) with the time and inclination to dig into it could
> really help getting things moving in that area again. Alas, I know very
> well that finding a person with the magic combination of available time,
> inclination, and skills isn't easy.

...

Indeed, it's the notable lack of OW Fortran having generated that cadre
of capable supporters/contributors that causes me to make the
recommendation for potential new users to at least consider the
alternatives unless there's a compelling reason to choose OW F77.

For me, it (compiler development) would be a whole new area of expertise
to have to develop and at this stage in my life I'm simply not motivated
enough to have any idea that even if I were to look into it that I'd
ever follow through with actually becoming competent enough to
accomplish anything. There's now such a lag between where OW F77 is and
the state of the others it would be a huge catch-up process to even get
to F95 that they've had for several years, what more on to the F03 and
F08 features that are being implemented it seems on a pretty frequent
update basis.

It's unfortunate but to me seems inevitable unless some new folks happen
to come along and catch the bug that OW F77 will continue essentially
unchanged.

Maybe the OP of the thread will be the catalyst, who knows???? :)

--

Robert Miles

unread,

Aug 14, 2011, 8:00:13 PM8/14/11

to

On 12/10/2010 7:09 PM, Peter C. Chapin wrote:

What I've seen says this is true for some Windows 7 versions (Home
Premium and below) but probably not for others (Pro and above) that
include a 16-bit emulator.

Robert Miles

Peter C. Chapin

unread,

Aug 14, 2011, 10:14:26 PM8/14/11

to

On 2011-08-14 20:00, Robert Miles wrote:

> What I've seen says this is true for some Windows 7 versions (Home
> Premium and below) but probably not for others (Pro and above) that
> include a 16-bit emulator.

Do you happen to know how to use that emulator? Are you talking about
Windows XP mode? XP mode entails the use of a virtual machine so it's a
pretty heavy weight solution. I haven't played with it though.

I have Windows 7 Professional, 64 bit, and the 16 bit wgml.exe doesn't
run here out of the box.

Peter

Robert Miles

unread,

Aug 14, 2011, 11:07:27 PM8/14/11

to

Sorry, I don't even have Windows 7 yet, but saw that on a list of
features for various versions of Windows 7 while deciding which
version to order with a new computer recently.

I just searched for that info again and did not find it. I'll try
again tomorrow.

Robert Miles

unread,

Aug 23, 2011, 12:44:54 AM8/23/11

to

I've now found more such information, and it looks rather confusing.

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_programs/is-windows-7-able-to-run-16-bit-installers-under/64b42c08-dd90-424f-8dfc-adf8fc474351

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926657

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ff756590.aspx

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_programs/how-can-i-run-16-bit-programs-in-windows-7-64-bit/22b921f5-0b71-4ba1-8567-2bb86a1b604e

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproappcompat/thread/a4b43e3e-2c63-4b4d-9b52-46974c0b1f1d

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/business/windows-xp-mode.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/get-started.aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd371688(v=VS.85).aspx

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itproappcompat/thread/e94fdaad-9779-4e2d-865a-bd2d797173cc

My guess as to what this means is that 64-bit Windows 7, as
supplied from Microsoft, does not have this capability,
but downloading and installing an add-on or two can add
this capability. Since at least one of the required
add-ons is not from Microsoft, they haven't said anything
official about it.

Robert Miles