Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/07/31/03:15:08
Mike A. Harris wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, iNFiK wrote:
>
> > How compatible is djgpp program sources to borland c++ source?
> > i mean, what version is djgpp equivilant to borland's c++?
> > how much are they different?
> > I just spent the last 3 hours DLing djgpp cause i heard it was good and
> > have a VERY old version of borland c++ (version 3.1).
>
> It depends on how many Borland extensions your code uses. So far,
> I've found tremendous compatibility. I've recompiled various programs
> that are BC3.1 heavy, and only needed to change a couple of function
> calls. The conio routines seem to be exact dupes of BC's, but I'm sure
> someone else can be much more specific.
The BIG difference between BC3.1 (and also MSVC 1.x, and any 16-bit compiler)
is that it is 16-bit whereas DJGPP is 32-bit (and protected mode execution).
For example, data type int is 16-bit under BC3.1 and 32-bit under DJGPP. For
numeric computations it doesn't matter (programs compiled with djgpp will be
more robust to integer overflow), but for file access this can be dramatic :
You simply cannot share binary files between BC and DJGPP.
Standard libraries (stdio, stdlib...) are the same. Even some not-standard
libraries (conio) are the same. Under djgpp you don't have the BGI graphic
library (unless you use the compatibility library bgi2grx), but some
much more powerfull graphic library (libgrx, allegro for example).
Finally, there is an interface for djgpp development which is at least as
nice as BC's one : RHIDE.
So move to DJGPP, you won't regret it !!
--
Eric Nicolas <nicolas AT dsys DOT ceng DOT cea DOT fr>
Take a look to the SWORD home page :
france: http://bunny.ensea.fr/Pages_Perso/Cedric_Joulain/sword.web/home.html
- Raw text -