Mail Archives: djgpp/2013/06/26/11:39:05
> From: "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have AT notemailnotq DOT cpm>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 04:05:30 -0400
>
> Basically, I was asking how difficult it would be to create a DOS
> only version of MinGW. If MSVCRT has many functions and MinGW
> uses many of them, it'll take much coding to remove or replace
> them. If the MSVCRT functions MinGW uses are complicated, not
> simple, it'll take even more work. Some C libraries only need
> about 20 functions to bootstrap, while others need many.
MinGW basically provides:
. system header files required to compile programs
. import libraries required to link programs such that they will use
Windows DLLs (including, but not limited to, msvcrt.dll) at run
time
. startup code to be linked into each program, and
. a relatively small library of additional functions that Windows
does not provide, such as gettimeofday
Given the above, and the fact that the Windows DLLs provide hundreds
if not thousands of useful functions (and msvcrt provides all the
standard C functions and then some), I think it should be clear that
"DOS only version of MinGW" does not make any sense, because MinGW's
goal is to provide the _minimal_ infrastructure needed to build
programs that will use Windows DLLs at run time.
- Raw text -