X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:38:46 +0300 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Rebuilding 2.04 from source In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1 AT inter DOT net DOT il To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Message-id: <83ppv8hoft.fsf@gnu.org> References: <713e6460-511d-4b27-a9a5-b07cc63fd02d AT googlegroups DOT com> 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 > From: "Rod Pemberton" > 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.