On 19/02/24 19:47, xhajt03 wrote:
> If it was written in Turtle Graphics, MS would
> probably have distributed something like msvtgrt.dll
> with it.
Ok, I think I get your point.
> Various C compilers have their own C run-time library
> for the platforms they target (and compilers for other
> languages have their own runtime libraries).
I forked and maintain gcc 3.2.3.
It is now C90 compliant.
The supported FSF version isn't even written
in C anymore.
So, as a C compiler maintainer, and also (before
that) the author of a C library, I basically get
to decide what the DLL will look like. Just as
the EMX guy decided for his fork.
> Using these libraries (in combination with the
> respective compiler) brings benefits because
> people don't have to reinvent the wheel by
> redoing something already solved by the C
> compiler authors (or their porters to the
> respective target operating system).
And I'm one of those porters.
> OTOH, duplicating msvcrt.dll on OS/2 or whatever
> else (by building it from scratch using a different
> C compiler instead of using the runtime library of
> that particular C compiler)
There isn't a single C runtime library associated
with GCC, is there?
Is OS/2 even supported by FSF? I didn't see any
sign of that in the gcc 3.2.3 source code.
And since I don't need to thunk, because I don't
need to run 16-bit code, then the gcc 3.2.3 compiler
that I distribute should produce code that works
for OS/2.
But it is pending on other components being
available, specifically the pdld linker.
And the author of pdld has only agreed to work on
that if I first get OS/2 applications to load under
PDOS/386 so that he can test the result.
And that in turn is pending on the result of my
bug report in ArcaOS as I don't want to disturb
my environment.
In the meantime, I've had two breakthroughs with
the Linux version of PDPCLIB in the last week
(including just a few hours ago), which should see
Linux apps working fine and normally under PDOS/386.
BFN. Paul.