Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

FPC: 7-Zip or UPX ; TC++ pros and cons (Miscellaneous)

posted by Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 24.02.2009, 07:06

> Funny. All executables inside FPC package are UPX'ed and I shouldn't
> it then :clap:
> What about banning UPX and reducing package size in next release,
> see msg=5374 ? :-)

First of all, switching to 7-Zip has been vaguely discussed here before (by Steve and marcov), but it wasn't considered realistic due to potential platform issues, portability concerns, lack of testing, as well as no Pascal srcs for such (unlike Zip).

Secondly, they could stop using UPX, esp. if they all hate UPX so much, but it would increase download size ... although UPX's best uses LZMA anyways, so switching to 7-Zip would offset that.

(As for UPX license conflict, I don't know of any, but using UPX-UCL can easily fix that, which is 100% same compression for LZMA, only very vaguely worse ratio for UCL instead of closed-src NRV.)

Here's what I recently packaged for FreeDOS (if anybody here cares, highly doubt it):

> > If DJGPP really stops, Dos is dead.
> They stopped DOS support 10 years ago. Are you able to use the BUGzilla
> now ? Maybe someone should port GCC to DOS ASAP :hungry:

Eh? No, I think they only stopped bothering to SFN-ize the srcs. Otherwise, everything still works. (Besides, 2.04 beta is from 2003, so that's "only" five years, heh.)

> > Turbo C++ 1.01 is "dead" but still used by FreeDOS many years after
> no C99

Nor C++0x, boo hoo.

> > + runs on 16-bit cpus
> heh, unique ... :-|

One of the only full ANSI C freeware ones I know of. All the others are only subsets, thus not as good.

> > - DOS only (no cross compiling supported)
> This is not a con :-P

It is if you want to compile from x86-64 without DOSEMU. Or if you wanted to target other OSes, which are becoming more common every day.

> > - no newer C++ features (generics, templates, etc.)
> nor C99

To be honest, even GCC has imperfect C99 support. And most people don't want or use it anyways (ahem, MSVC).

> > - 186/286 optimizations at most (useless for 99% of the world)
> What did you expect from a 16-bit compiler ? 8086 is enough :-)

AFAICT, even 286 is not really supported, only 186. I dunno, it's still good, just less than optimal (e.g. OpenWatcom produces faster code).

> > - OpenWatcom is better in most ways (but needs 386+ to host)
> + the bloat :-(

You mean the compiler overall? Blame 386+ opcodes or (heh) use UPX. ;-)

> > Besides, there even a DOS extender that works with it
> pulled one more coffin from its grave ? :lol3: What's unique on it ?

What's unique? It works with TC++, even virtual memory. Not enough? ;-)


Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15296 Postings in 1378 Threads, 254 registered users, 10 users online (0 registered, 10 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum