X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Received:	by 10.224.17.140 with SMTP id s12mr424695qaa.3.1361492140725;
	Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:15:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Received:	by 10.49.86.40 with SMTP id m8mr170074qez.30.1361492140687; Thu,
	21 Feb 2013 16:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:15:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<c0be2619-56f6-44c7-a635-3bde4d4ae95a@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info:	glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246;
	posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO
NNTP-Posting-Host:	65.13.115.246
References:	<c0be2619-56f6-44c7-a635-3bde4d4ae95a AT googlegroups DOT com>
User-Agent:	G2/1.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-ID:	<4d5ae949-f052-4df1-911a-c81b7b849840@googlegroups.com>
Subject:	Re: Building Wine under DJGPP
From:	rugxulo AT gmail DOT com
Injection-Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:15:40 +0000
Bytes:	4320
Lines:	79
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Hi,

On Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2013 7:05:02 PM UTC-6, Maksim Soifer wrote:
>
> Hello and sorry for such absurd if you think this thread is absurd
> for you.
>
> We trying to compile Wine for dos enviroment.

I don't think WINE is even remotely supported under DJGPP. It's not
super portable enough. Just because it works on more than one *nix
doesn't mean it'll work under DJGPP. Granted, I guess it's
technically possible for somebody to port it to DJGPP, but I really
really doubt it will happen!

It's just too many assumptions that aren't correct under DOS. You
have every right to try it anyways, but it won't work without a
fairly big rewrite of some major core components.

> If i now correctly - djgpp dont allow shared library building -
> am i correct?
> 
> so building library of any kind is not possible?

DJGPP 2.03p2 "current" has very very limited DXE1 support.

DJGPP 2.04 "beta" has DXE3, which supports dlopen, dlsym. Slightly
better but still not perfect.

DJELF (GCC/G++ 4.0.0) was an experimental fork provided by the same
dude who helped co-write DXE3. He called it the successor to DXE,
but it was never officially integrated nor tested, used, etc. by
lots of people. It's on official DJGPP mirrors (mainly because
his Geocities site disappeared), but I don't really recommend it,
esp. not here (hopeless cause, heh).  ;-)

Most DJGPP apps don't bother with any of these. Only porting stuff
from Linux relies on it sometimes. Not recommended unless you
really know what you're doing or are willing to waste hours of
your life.  ;-)

> And if i understand corerectly it is possible to build static
> binary - am i correct?

Yes, this is the most common use with DJGPP.

> trying to build last develoment version (1.5.24) i got :
> 
> gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../include -I../../include  -D__WINESRC__
> -D_REENTRANT -fPIC -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wempty-body -Wignored-qualifiers
> -Wstrict-prototypes -Wtype-limits -Wwrite-strings -gdwarf-2
> -fno-omit-frame-pointer -Wpointer-arith -Wlogical-op  -g  -o
> getopt.o getopt.c
> 
> e:/dj/tmp/ccDrfCtj.s:1567: Error: junk `@GOT' after expression
> 
> e:/dj/tmp/ccDrfCtj.s:1569: Error: junk `@PLT' after expression
> 
> e:/dj/tmp/ccDrfCtj.s:1573: Error: junk `@GOTOFF' after expression
> 
> many time repeated
> 
> if i remove -D_REENTRANT -fPIC object got compiled but all file
> that produced that way almost identical to each other that looking
> too strange.
> 
> please help us ^)

There's really not much help to be had. Yes, you can (barely) use
shared libraries if you're really dedicated, but porting WINE
would take hundreds of hours of additional work redoing everything
that isn't supported under DOS (a lot). I don't want to say
"impossible", but it's as close to impossible as you're ever going
to get. (This is why I previously suggested you stick to things
like HX, that's probably the best we'll get re: Win32 emulation.)

It's probably easier to port over Win32 apps provided with sources
than trying to mess with full binary emulation. What apps did you
have in mind, anything in particular?

- Raw text -