Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.os.os2.programmer.misc > #1834
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.os2.programmer.misc |
| Subject | Re: C DLL |
| Date | 2024-02-19 20:17 +0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <uqvgsq$1s2el$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <U9cAN.71155$24ld.37302@fx07.iad> <uqro4k$n0sn$1@dont-email.me> <604d807d-9b19-46f6-9927-8597e353f86dn@googlegroups.com> <uquf5i$1m18k$1@dont-email.me> <25fa67aa-b1a3-43cf-8669-ff44909195fen@googlegroups.com> |
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.
Back to comp.os.os2.programmer.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 04:35 +0800
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 05:16 +0800
Re: C DLL Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-16 15:32 -0800
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 09:49 +0800
Re: C DLL Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 10:42 -0800
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-18 03:11 +0800
Re: C DLL Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 16:27 -0800
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-18 09:56 +0800
Re: C DLL xhajt03 <xhajt03@gmail.com> - 2024-02-18 07:33 -0800
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-19 10:41 +0800
Re: C DLL xhajt03 <xhajt03@gmail.com> - 2024-02-19 03:47 -0800
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-19 20:17 +0800
Re: C DLL Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-19 14:31 -0800
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-20 06:47 +0800
Re: C DLL Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-19 22:03 -0800
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-20 14:16 +0800
Re: C DLL Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-02-16 15:28 -0800
Re: C DLL Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2024-02-17 10:11 +0100
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 18:00 +0800
Re: C DLL Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2024-02-17 18:03 +0800
csiph-web