X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Received: by 10.224.200.202 with SMTP id ex10mr11305580qab.8.1369506652749;
        Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.106.169 with SMTP id gv9mr2028365qeb.7.1369506652734;
 Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <83k3mnqb5o.fsf@gnu.org>
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: <1137560452 DOT 398133 DOT 301490 AT g14g2000cwa DOT googlegroups DOT com>
 <0ed77a97-aec8-4fde-8124-707ca9cffad1 AT googlegroups DOT com> <28c2ff16-6cef-46c3-8f52-f67b320b5c04 AT googlegroups DOT com>
 <de2dnU5WsKrWXQPMnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d AT earthlink DOT com> <68c3dec5-8fd4-4eb0-888d-3949d879a33c AT googlegroups DOT com>
 <90dceebd-8d81-4433-8932-9bce42bddb97 AT googlegroups DOT com> <83k3mnqb5o DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b5af8ced-f865-4d4e-afa2-bb7355343d5c@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Adding 64-bit file support to DJGPP
From: rugxulo AT gmail DOT com
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 18:30:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Received-Bytes: 3405
Bytes: 3634
Lines: 41
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
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:25:39 AM UTC-5, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> > From: Georg Potthast <dosusb AT nospamforgooglemail DOT moc>
> > 
> > As long as you do not access the hardware directly it is really
> > easy to port a DJGPP program to MinGW.
> 
> Did you actually try that?  My experience in porting to MinGW is
> exactly the opposite: DJGPP has a lot of Posix-like features that
> MinGW sorely lacks.  So porting to MinGW using a DJGPP port as a
> starting point will generally give you a broken port, and in many
> cases will simply refuse to compile or link.

IIRC, MinGW isn't explicitly targeting POSIX, only "native" Windows,
hence the avoidance of any Cygwin .DLL (also for licensing?) and
using "known .DLL" MSVCRT.DLL instead (despite bugs, e.g. tmpfile).
Actually, it's only the old MSVC 6 runtime, not newer, that they're
using, IIRC. Though a lot of MinGW usage is also because MSVC
doesn't really support C99, which MinGW seems to prefer.

> Besides, starting with DJGPP will automatically lose the advanced
> features you can have with Windows: networking, threads, parallel
> processes, etc.

If you're targeting all of that anyways, you're not really targeting
pure ISO C, are you? Almost better to "just use Java" (or Modula-3).

> DJ's suggestion to use MinGW is still valid, of course (although
> MinGW still doesn't support generation of 64-bit executables; you
> need to go to semi-official MinGW64 snapshots).  But please don't
> underestimate the efforts required for porting a non-trivial
> package to MinGW. Heck, even running a configure script is a
> challenge, and requires an installation of yet another environment
> (MSYS).

Blame those who refuse to code anything outside of POSIX. Obviously
AutoTools was never expected to work on systems without a native
POSIX shell. It might be (barely) wrong to say outside developers 
don't care about Windows, but clearly it's not first priority target.