From: Damian Yerrick Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Watcom vs djgpp Organization: Pin Eight Software http://pineight.8m.com/ Message-ID: References: <5337D585DDD3D111996B0008C728F07DA42A4B AT pa00fsr01 DOT pa DOT atitech DOT com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 60 X-Trace: +Lqm+424tcoi9sI5fvGA5AyWqUNenyojT1isbNOBwx3/STCwSDbiD6Lfx85kRtnRYduMPGhuz0nz!S90FoGAWIipm1G5mgfbqS6jG3F+ii7Exdq8LXpdSjBZ0tNZHQZEEd8vqkfP9NM8YmYgl977Ir/DG!e5w= X-Complaints-To: abuse AT gte DOT net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 02:25:22 GMT Distribution: world Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 02:25:22 GMT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:10:30 -0400, Nick DiToro wrote: >I write diagnostics code at ATI (a graphics card company) I forget: Does ATI open-source its drivers? >and we use the Watcom 11.0a compiler to create DOS-extended dos4gw >executables. Watcom is no longer supported That is, unless you count the powersoft.* groups. >and we are using GNU tools for other aspects of the project I am >working on. Good choice. >I am thinking about recommending that we switch to the DJGPP compiler >in order to minimize some porting, to get better optimizations Watcom is better at some things; GCC is better at other things. >1) How tough is it to port Watcom code? Going from Watcom-based Doom to DJGPP-based Quake was not that much bother for id Software :-) >Ours is DPMI 0.9 based That should make it easier. >We have about 120k executable lines of code to port. Porting the >assembly code is going to stink because of the different formats used. >Has anybody had to do this in the past? NASM the Netwide Assembler should help you. It uses the same Intel syntax that most other x86 assemblers use. >2) We sometimes run Watcom executables under Win 9x in a DOS box. As long >as win 9x does not grab and use the hardware we are running the diagnostic >on, this seems to work fine. Is this possible with CWSDPMI ? Provided you used DPMI to get at the device's RAM, you should be ok. >4) I would like to learn more about DJGPP and the go 32 DOS extender. DJ's >web site has been a great resource. Can anybody point me to any other >resources (other than those listed on the web site)? (Books, magazine >articles, etc.) A short go32-like extender is part of the DJGPP 2.x startup code. -- Damian Yerrick "I refuse to listen to those who refuse to listen to reason." See the whole sig: http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~yerricde/sig.html This is McAfee VirusScan. Add these two lines to your signature to prevent the spread of signature viruses. http://www.mcafee.com/