X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne AT bcczxcfre DOT cmm>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Is DJGPP Emacs still wanted? (was: GCC 3.4.6 -gcoff produces
 executable without line number info)
Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 00:52:48 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <20160430005248.00cff545@_>
References: <83bn4uxben DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
 <837ffix9o7 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
 <5722455F DOT 3020906 AT gmx DOT de>
 <831t5py22r DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
 <57228FEC DOT 9080408 AT gmx DOT de>
 <83mvocx0iw DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
 <64c70a9b-9dd3-44c0-92a1-453173378e92 AT googlegroups DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT aioe DOT org
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Bytes: 4241
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
rugxulo AT gmail DOT com wrote:

> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 3:49:47 AM UTC-5, Eli Zaretskii
> (eliz AT spam DOT sux) [via djgpp AT spam DOT sux] wrote:

> > This raises an issue that is IMO important to discuss.  It is
> > certainly important for me personally.  Here it is:
> > 
> >   Do we still want/need to build latest Emacs versions with DJGPP?  
> 
> What's changed since last binary release? What's the advantage in
> having a newer version at all? Anything crucial? If not, then no,
> we don't need it that badly, we'll just use the older version.

I for one have never used Emacs or GDB, not with DJGPP, not elsewhere.


> We're lucky anything still works. There's just not enough impetus
> to fix all the things that need fixing.

I'm still hoping DJGPP will compile GLIBC, and binutils will support
ELF and also produce 64-bit, even if none of it is fully supported, or
properly ported, or even working correctly for DOS.  It's still a step
further than the present and could be useful for non-DOS situations
like OS development or boot loaders or embedded environments.  Of
course, I wish this was against v2.03 as I feel there are some issues
with v2.04.  I haven't tried v2.05 yet.

> [Indirectly asked: Does anyone still use DJGPP's port of Emacs?]

For editors, rugxulo, you should know what mostly everyone uses per
your May 4, 2009 post to c.o.m.d. here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.msdos.djgpp/UaI2OmS4zhI/H0PlZnxhGYAJ
msd-id
<f1018f14-b049-48d5-90a6-1cee94bd7ca7 AT z9g2000yqi DOT googlegroups DOT com>


So, to update and repeat a bit, I use:

DOS: MS-EDIT, elvis  (non-DJGPP DOS VI clone with ED/EX support)
Win98: Notepad  (also Wordpad, MS Word)
Linux: Vim  (also Leafpad, LibreOffice, AbiWord, Notepad)

On DOS, for programming, I mostly use MS-EDIT.  I sometimes use elvis
to append text to the start or end of line especially to a large bunch
of lines with one command.  AFAIK, this is not possible to do with
MS-EDIT.  Unfortunately, elvis is limited to smaller sized files. There
was another text editor that I used to use for some years because it
had a hex mode built into it.

On Linux, for programming, I've been using Vim invoked as vi, which is
less than optimal, but Vim is good for writing and saving text.  It's
not as easy to use as Leafpad, but ED/EX provides quicker access to
more powerful, faster editing.  It also works with the mouse on Linux
and the terminal window can directly paste into a Vim file being edited.

MS-EDIT combined with ED/EX for Linux would probably be awesome ...
Well, even a good MS-EDIT clone on Linux would be awesome.  Vim could
still be used for specialty ED/EX editing as vi.

> Plus, it's surprisingly hard to find/make/update a decent
> setup to develop for DOS.

In what way?  Are you talking hardware or software?

It is probably better to move this and any further text editor
discussion to comp.os.msdos.programmer as we have some testy people
around here. This was cross-posted to and follow-ups set to
comp.os.msdos.programmer.


Rod Pemberton