Re: OS/2 Port

> I wasn't around for the beginning of this discussion.  What drove us to
> use the IBM compiler rather than gcc or Watcom?

Because Phil stubbornly refused to cooperate with anything any of the rest of 
us said and is using CSet, for no apparent reason except that he wants to, 
despite lots of reasons why it's the wrong choice, and everybody else has
disappeared.. sigh.

> Anyway, I don't think it makes all that much difference.  The hard
> parts of porting from unix to OS/2 -- lack of non-blocking i/o; fork();
> and the gui stuff -- are little affected by choice of compiler.

Not true.  EMX supports non-blocking IO and fork() seamlessly (and popen, 
too), as it does just about all the other unix stuff.

> I am a little worried about implementing the 64-bit arithmatic in assembler,
> though.  Won't that stuff have to be distributed as a binary object?   In my
> experience, x86 assemblers are pretty rare on OS/2 programmers' desks.

It'll all have to be distributed as a binary for a lot of people anyway, 
because not everyone (me, for example) has their choice of commercial tools to
compile with.  The tools they've decided to use are just a stupid choice
for all kinds of reasons, but I guess stupidity is what we're stuck with. 

I give up.
     Alex Stewart - riche@crl.com - Richelieu @ Diversity University MOO
            "Difficult answers lead to intelligent questions."
OS/2 Java Porting mailing list:  sl65r@hyrum.declab.usu.edu
To unsubscribe:  send to above address with the single word
"unsubscribe" as the subject.  (the message body will be ignored)
Any problems with the list service, please email sl65r@cc.usu.edu.

Follow-Ups: References: