Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Smaller C compiler (tests under emulation) (Announce)

posted by Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 21.05.2015, 03:26
(edited by Rugxulo on 21.05.2015, 03:40)

> > .BATs are a bit too primitive to my taste and insufficiently
> standardized/
> > widespread. I wouldn't be able to use them under Linux, for example.
> > They'd have to be confined to DOS/Windows environment. Makefiles aren't
> > the best either. There are different makes and Windows doesn't provide
> > make out of the box.
> Then use pre-existing portable tools like GNU Make or OpenWatcom Wmake(r)
> or Dmake.

Well, I don't mean makefiles are perfect. Admittedly, I've only done semi-trivial ones, and the host OS shell is the main problem. Some makefiles rely way too heavily on host features, and it's admittedly not easy to avoid that.

Just for example, P5 Pascal 1.1 (bytecode compiler): he used many (DOS-unfriendly) .BAT and .SH files separately for his compilation and tests. Presumably that's the kind of duplication of effort which you're trying to avoid. I did myself write a simple GNUmakefile (only to use GPC, not IP) that did a subset of that. Hence I was able to build and test on DOS, Linux, and Windows (with a few macro substitutions). IIRC, I used DJGPP GNU Make 3.79.1, Lucid Puppy Linux's GNU Make 3.81, and FreePascal's GNU Make 3.80. (Yes, even FPC relies on makefiles sometimes.) EDIT: DJGPP /beta/v2gnu/ has and nowadays.

OpenWatcom's Wmake is also portable, and Wmaker (real mode) should work anywhere with any extender (in theory). Same with old 16-bit DOS build of Dmake. I've not really tested Dmake on Windows or Linux, but a quick search the other day did show that prebuilt binaries exist, at least for Windows, e.g. some old Perl version, even Apache OpenOffice (though I have no idea if they still actively use or maintain such build scripts).

A lot of people these days (besides ignoring DOS entirely) prefer more robust tools, almost scripting languages, like Cmake or Scons. Obviously GNU relies (too) heavily on Bash + POSIX utilities + AutoTools + GNU Make.

I guess there's not much else to say. You probably knew most of this. I just don't know what else to tell you. Nothing's perfect.

P.S. I was also (barely) going to suggest you look at Louis Santillan's picotap, but apparently he removed DOS support ("May revisit that later")! Dunno why. Maybe it was too kludgy. You'd have to email him. I still have his old .ZIP but never really used it.


Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15317 Postings in 1383 Threads, 254 registered users, 16 users online (0 registered, 16 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum