Hi-
Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (www.openwatcom.org), will this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?
Just wondering,
- Pete
Pete DiMarco <peted@ifsreg.com> wrote:
Hi-
Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will
this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?Just wondering,
- Pete
Interesting question. Sometimes I ponder these kinds of philosophical
questions myself (but never during work hours of course). In that
capacity (i.e. in a philosophical non-official I’m not at work way),
I offer the following…
I was just reading the other day about how physics cannot explain why
time seems to have a directional flow which we as humans perceive.
Apparently (and I don’t pretend to understand all the math), there
is no reason why events that occur now should not affect decisions
that were made in the past, yet the universe appears to still behave
that way.
It’s kind of comforting though, to think that despite our current
attitude that we pretty much understand how the entire Universe
works, there are still things that science can’t explain.
Who knows… it may be that the recent open sourcing of Watcom’s
compilers may affect decisions we made long ago. According to
modern physics, that is just as likely as a decision we made
long ago having something to do with them open sourcing.
In this view, cause and effect are an illusion, and we are all
just consciousnesses predestined to follow a 4 dimensional path
in space time.
So I guess the answer to your question is It always has'' or It never did’’, depending on wether the cat is alive or dead
when someone lets him out of the bag.
This has got to be the most convoluted response I’ve ever read in my life… 
Interesting question. Sometimes I ponder these kinds of philosophical
questions myself (but never during work hours of course). In that
capacity (i.e. in a philosophical non-official I’m not at work way),
I offer the following…I was just reading the other day about how physics cannot explain why
time seems to have a directional flow which we as humans perceive.Apparently (and I don’t pretend to understand all the math), there
is no reason why events that occur now should not affect decisions
that were made in the past, yet the universe appears to still behave
that way.It’s kind of comforting though, to think that despite our current
attitude that we pretty much understand how the entire Universe
works, there are still things that science can’t explain.Who knows… it may be that the recent open sourcing of Watcom’s
compilers may affect decisions we made long ago. According to
modern physics, that is just as likely as a decision we made
long ago having something to do with them open sourcing.In this view, cause and effect are an illusion, and we are all
just consciousnesses predestined to follow a 4 dimensional path
in space time.So I guess the answer to your question is
It always has'' orIt never did’’, depending on wether the cat is alive or dead
when someone lets him out of the bag.
How refreshing, keep it up Pete !!!
<pete@qnx.com> wrote in message news:8of57o$mrm$1@inn.qnx.com…
Pete DiMarco <> peted@ifsreg.com> > wrote:
Hi-Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will
this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?Just wondering,
- Pete
Interesting question. Sometimes I ponder these kinds of philosophical
questions myself (but never during work hours of course). In that
capacity (i.e. in a philosophical non-official I’m not at work way),
I offer the following…I was just reading the other day about how physics cannot explain why
time seems to have a directional flow which we as humans perceive.
Apparently (and I don’t pretend to understand all the math), there
is no reason why events that occur now should not affect decisions
that were made in the past, yet the universe appears to still behave
that way.It’s kind of comforting though, to think that despite our current
attitude that we pretty much understand how the entire Universe
works, there are still things that science can’t explain.Who knows… it may be that the recent open sourcing of Watcom’s
compilers may affect decisions we made long ago. According to
modern physics, that is just as likely as a decision we made
long ago having something to do with them open sourcing.In this view, cause and effect are an illusion, and we are all
just consciousnesses predestined to follow a 4 dimensional path
in space time.So I guess the answer to your question is
It always has'' orIt never did’’, depending on wether the cat is alive or dead
when someone lets him out of the bag.
Same here! Refreshingly simple
Mario Charest <mcharest@zinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:8ogmr4$ii0$1@inn.qnx.com…
How refreshing, keep it up Pete !!!
pete@qnx.com> > wrote in message news:8of57o$mrm$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Pete DiMarco <> peted@ifsreg.com> > wrote:
Hi-Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will
this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?Just wondering,
- Pete
Interesting question. Sometimes I ponder these kinds of philosophical
questions myself (but never during work hours of course). In that
capacity (i.e. in a philosophical non-official I’m not at work way),
I offer the following…I was just reading the other day about how physics cannot explain why
time seems to have a directional flow which we as humans perceive.
Apparently (and I don’t pretend to understand all the math), there
is no reason why events that occur now should not affect decisions
that were made in the past, yet the universe appears to still behave
that way.It’s kind of comforting though, to think that despite our current
attitude that we pretty much understand how the entire Universe
works, there are still things that science can’t explain.Who knows… it may be that the recent open sourcing of Watcom’s
compilers may affect decisions we made long ago. According to
modern physics, that is just as likely as a decision we made
long ago having something to do with them open sourcing.In this view, cause and effect are an illusion, and we are all
just consciousnesses predestined to follow a 4 dimensional path
in space time.So I guess the answer to your question is
It always has'' orIt never did’’, depending on wether the cat is alive or dead
when someone lets him out of the bag.
Previously, pete@qnx.com wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Pete DiMarco <> peted@ifsreg.com> > wrote:
Hi-Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will
this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?Just wondering,
- Pete
Interesting question. Sometimes I ponder these kinds of philosophical
questions myself (but never during work hours of course). In that
capacity (i.e. in a philosophical non-official I’m not at work way),
I offer the following…
[TEXT DELETED]
Allow me to restate the question.
First some background: I’m using QNX 4. I “joined the family” at the beginning of the year.
One of the concerns we had back when we decided to go with QNX was support for the platform and tools. We understood that QNX4 was going to be replaced by Neutrino, and that the Watcom compiler was “going away”. QSSL had announced a deal with the MetroWerks(sp?) for a version of CodeWarrior that would support QNX. There was also some talk about QSSL using the GNU compiler for Neutrino.
From what I’ve seen on QUICS, there do seem to be on-going support issues involving the Watcom compiler. If Watcom C/C++ was going to have absolutely no support in the future, that might provide a reason for migrating QNX4 users (particularly new users) to the GNU compiler. I assume that if a significant problem turned up with Watcom compiler, QSSL would not say “tough luck, we only support Neutrino now.”
I suppose a better way to phrase my question would be: “Does the recent announcement that the Watcom compiler is going open source have any effect on QNX or Neutrino developers? Is it likely to have any effect in the future?”
In a few months I’ll be choosing an OS for another product line. I’ve met enough decent people at QSSL that I won’t let your comments bias me towards LynuxWorks.
- Pete
“Pete DiMarco” <peted@ifsreg.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.000829112016.166A@node1…
Previously, > pete@qnx.com > wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Pete DiMarco <> peted@ifsreg.com> > wrote:
Hi-Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will
this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?Just wondering,
- Pete
Interesting question. Sometimes I ponder these kinds of philosophical
questions myself (but never during work hours of course). In that
capacity (i.e. in a philosophical non-official I’m not at work way),
I offer the following…
[TEXT DELETED]
Allow me to restate the question.First some background: I’m using QNX 4. I “joined the family” at the
beginning of the year.One of the concerns we had back when we decided to go with QNX was
support for the platform and tools. We understood that QNX4 was going to be
replaced by Neutrino, and that the Watcom compiler was “going away”. QSSL
had announced a deal with the MetroWerks(sp?) for a version of CodeWarrior
that would support QNX. There was also some talk about QSSL using the GNU
compiler for Neutrino.
From what I’ve seen on QUICS, there do seem to be on-going support
issues involving the Watcom compiler. If Watcom C/C++ was going to have
absolutely no support in the future, that might provide a reason for
migrating QNX4 users (particularly new users) to the GNU compiler. I assume
that if a significant problem turned up with Watcom compiler, QSSL would
not say “tough luck, we only support Neutrino now.”
I suppose a better way to phrase my question would be: "Does the recent
announcement that the Watcom compiler is going open source have any effect
on QNX or Neutrino developers? Is it likely to have any effect in the
future?"
He didn’t get it
In a few months I’ll be choosing an OS for another product line. I’ve
met enough decent people at QSSL that I won’t let your comments bias me
towards LynuxWorks.
A threat, hum that’ll do it…
- Pete
I suppose I don’t get it it either, simple question, reasonable concern
yet through all of the text and bandwidth presented so far there has
been no real answer.
-Paul
Mario Charest wrote:
He didn’t get it
\
- Pete
In article <39AC1CEE.8A3920EA@ifsreg.com>,
Paul N. Leonard <paull@ifsreg.com> wrote:
I suppose I don’t get it it either, simple question, reasonable concern
yet through all of the text and bandwidth presented so far there has
been no real answer.
The question was “…will this affect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?”
Answer: “probably not”.
But, I find myself irrestistably drawn to the lure of Pete’s (rather profound)
original answer. Maybe I should change that to “probably not any more than it
already had before they made the announcement”. Anyway it really doesn’t
matter, since whether the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no’, it is of only philosophical
interest.
A more interesting question is to ask, in light of this announcement,
is what our compiler support strategy is for QNX 4. I can’t promise a
clearcut answer to that one at this point. We’re certainly contemplating
the issue but the news was as new to us as it was to you.
–
Eric Johnson
QA Mgr, QNX Software Systems Ltd.
Pete DiMarco <peted@ifsreg.com> wrote:
Previously, > pete@qnx.com > wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Pete DiMarco <> peted@ifsreg.com> > wrote:
Hi-Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will
this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?Just wondering,
- Pete
Interesting question. Sometimes I ponder these kinds of philosophical
questions myself (but never during work hours of course). In that
capacity (i.e. in a philosophical non-official I’m not at work way),
I offer the following…
[TEXT DELETED]Allow me to restate the question.
Certainly.
First some background: I’m using QNX 4. I “joined the family” at the
beginning of the year.
Great. If you can’t kid around a bit with family, who can you kid around
with. Please don’t take it personally. You should see how I treat my
sister, but I love her dearly.
One of the concerns we had back when we decided to go with QNX was
support for the platform and tools. We understood that QNX4 was going
to be replaced by Neutrino, and that the Watcom compiler was “going away”.
QSSL had announced a deal with the MetroWerks(sp?) for a version of
CodeWarrior that would support QNX. There was also some talk about
QSSL using the GNU compiler for Neutrino.
That is what we did. We have been using the GNU compiler for Neutrino
development for a long time now. Sorry if you didn’t know that. The
decision to use the Watcom compiler for QNX 4 was made long ago, and
so was the decision to use GNU for Neutrino.
Maybe my answer makes more sense now. Our compiler choices are history,
and given the amount of effort we’ve put into migrating our code base
to use the GNU compiler, I don’t see us going back.
From what I’ve seen on QUICS, there do seem to be on-going support
issues involving the Watcom compiler. If Watcom C/C++ was going to
have absolutely no support in the future, that might provide a reason
for migrating QNX4 users (particularly new users) to the GNU compiler.
I assume that if a significant problem turned up with Watcom compiler,
QSSL would not say “tough luck, we only support Neutrino now.”
It’s nice of Sybase to open source their stuff, but I don’t think that
automatically supercedes any legal agreements we might have with them.
Until all that stuff is ironed out, noone is going to give you a
straight answer on a lot of your questions.
I suppose a better way to phrase my question would be: "Does the
recent announcement that the Watcom compiler is going open source
have any effect on QNX or Neutrino developers?
I don’t see it having any effect on Neutrino developers.
QNX 4 developers of course use it, so anything that happens with regard
to it will affect them in some way, but it’s a complete unkown at this
time just how or how much.
In a few months I’ll be choosing an OS for another product line.
I’ve met enough decent people at QSSL that I won’t let your comments
bias me towards LynuxWorks.
Glad to hear it.
You were asking a business question about a very recent business development
in a public, technical forum. The chances that anyone who might have any
idea about what our policy is going to be on this matter would give an
answer here before they clear it with our legal department and post a formal
announcement on our web site are virtually nil.
Previously, Pete DiMarco wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Previously, > pete@qnx.com > wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Pete DiMarco <> peted@ifsreg.com> > wrote:
Hi-Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will
this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?
Its irrelevant, QSSL already has the source for watcom, and the library.
It might mean they can distribute watcom for free, instead of it having
to be bought, but I doubt it, and thats not a technical issue anyhow.
Also, there are no ongoing bugs with Watcom, as far as I know. There
are several features it doesn’t have:
The libraries aren’t thread safe (but QNX4 doesn’t really have threads).
C++ support is frozen at about the level of the ARM.
I don’t expect this will ever change. Also your posting seemed to suggest
compiler support for Nto was up in the air. It isn’t, its gcc.
Sam
–
Sam Roberts (sam@cogent.ca), Cogent Real-Time Systems (www.cogent.ca)
Sam Roberts wrote:
Previously, Pete DiMarco wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Previously, > pete@qnx.com > wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Pete DiMarco <> peted@ifsreg.com> > wrote:
Hi-Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will
this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?Its irrelevant, QSSL already has the source for watcom, and the library.
It might mean they can distribute watcom for free, instead of it having
to be bought, but I doubt it, and thats not a technical issue anyhow.Also, there are no ongoing bugs with Watcom, as far as I know. There
are several features it doesn’t have:The libraries aren’t thread safe (but QNX4 doesn’t really have threads).
C++ support is frozen at about the level of the ARM.
As I understand it, Watcom 11 is ANSI compliant. It might not be too
hard to make a QNX4 version of 11 which would be very helpful to QNX4
developers and for porting. Also 11 has an IDE that might be ported to
QNX. Since I’m not an IDE fan, this is not important to me but others
might care.
I don’t expect this will ever change. Also your posting seemed to suggest
compiler support for Nto was up in the air. It isn’t, its gcc.Sam
–
Sam Roberts (> sam@cogent.ca> ), Cogent Real-Time Systems (> www.cogent.ca> )
Dean Douthat <ddouthat@faac.com> wrote:
: Sam Roberts wrote:
:>
:> Previously, Pete DiMarco wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
:> > Previously, pete@qnx.com wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
:> > > Pete DiMarco <peted@ifsreg.com> wrote:
:> > > > Hi-
:> > >
:> > > > Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (www.openwatcom.org), will
:> > > > this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?
:>
:> Its irrelevant, QSSL already has the source for watcom, and the library.
:> It might mean they can distribute watcom for free, instead of it having
:> to be bought, but I doubt it, and thats not a technical issue anyhow.
:>
:> Also, there are no ongoing bugs with Watcom, as far as I know. There
:> are several features it doesn’t have:
:>
:> The libraries aren’t thread safe (but QNX4 doesn’t really have threads).
:>
:> C++ support is frozen at about the level of the ARM.
: As I understand it, Watcom 11 is ANSI compliant. It might not be too
I do not know about this, the ISO C 14882 was release in 1998 or 1999,
can not remember, but I doubt there was enough developement on Watcom C++
to bring to that level. Still Compilers vendor including g++ are
fighting to bring there product to the std.
: hard to make a QNX4 version of 11 which would be very helpful to QNX4
: developers and for porting. Also 11 has an IDE that might be ported to
: QNX. Since I’m not an IDE fan, this is not important to me but others
: might care.
Yes, but as many pointed there are dark legals issues and you problably
will not get any straight answers in this forum.
:>
:> I don’t expect this will ever change. Also your posting seemed to suggest
:> compiler support for Nto was up in the air. It isn’t, its gcc.
:>
:> Sam
:>
:> –
:> Sam Roberts (sam@cogent.ca), Cogent Real-Time Systems (www.cogent.ca)
–
au revoir, alain
Aussi haut que l’on soit assis, on n’est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!
Yeah, but it was long. So it looked good.
Gary <gdike@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.000829113657.487444A@node480…
This has got to be the most convoluted response I’ve ever read in my
life… >
Interesting question. Sometimes I ponder these kinds of philosophical
questions myself (but never during work hours of course). In that
capacity (i.e. in a philosophical non-official I’m not at work way),
I offer the following…I was just reading the other day about how physics cannot explain why
time seems to have a directional flow which we as humans perceive.Apparently (and I don’t pretend to understand all the math), there
is no reason why events that occur now should not affect decisions
that were made in the past, yet the universe appears to still behave
that way.It’s kind of comforting though, to think that despite our current
attitude that we pretty much understand how the entire Universe
works, there are still things that science can’t explain.Who knows… it may be that the recent open sourcing of Watcom’s
compilers may affect decisions we made long ago. According to
modern physics, that is just as likely as a decision we made
long ago having something to do with them open sourcing.In this view, cause and effect are an illusion, and we are all
just consciousnesses predestined to follow a 4 dimensional path
in space time.So I guess the answer to your question is
It always has'' orIt never did’’, depending on wether the cat is alive or dead
when someone lets him out of the bag.
. . .
(Oh, never mind.)
Gary <gdike@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.000901120839.856097B@node480…
Previously, Bill at Sierra Design wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Yeah, but it was long. So it looked good.It’s not the size that counts…
Previously, Bill at Sierra Design wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Yeah, but it was long. So it looked good.
It’s not the size that counts…
Gary <> gdike@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:Voyager.000829113657.487444A@node480…This has got to be the most convoluted response I’ve ever read in my
life… >
Interesting question. Sometimes I ponder these kinds of philosophical
questions myself (but never during work hours of course). In that
capacity (i.e. in a philosophical non-official I’m not at work way),
I offer the following…I was just reading the other day about how physics cannot explain why
time seems to have a directional flow which we as humans perceive.Apparently (and I don’t pretend to understand all the math), there
is no reason why events that occur now should not affect decisions
that were made in the past, yet the universe appears to still behave
that way.It’s kind of comforting though, to think that despite our current
attitude that we pretty much understand how the entire Universe
works, there are still things that science can’t explain.Who knows… it may be that the recent open sourcing of Watcom’s
compilers may affect decisions we made long ago. According to
modern physics, that is just as likely as a decision we made
long ago having something to do with them open sourcing.In this view, cause and effect are an illusion, and we are all
just consciousnesses predestined to follow a 4 dimensional path
in space time.So I guess the answer to your question is
It always has'' orIt never did’’, depending on wether the cat is alive or dead
when someone lets him out of the bag.
\
Sam Roberts <sam@cogent.ca> wrote:
Previously, Pete DiMarco wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Previously, > pete@qnx.com > wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Pete DiMarco <> peted@ifsreg.com> > wrote:
Hi-Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will
this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?Its irrelevant, QSSL already has the source for watcom, and the library.
Actually, QSSL does not (to my knowledge) have the source to the
Watcom compiler – we did/do have source to the library. (Both
the sections that we “own” and to Watcom’s sections.)
Also, there are no ongoing bugs with Watcom, as far as I know. There
are several features it doesn’t have:
There are some bugs in the current version, especially with C++
compilation. The C compiler is pretty solid though. (I think
I’ve seen a couple of minor problems reported.)
-David
Is there a list of the known C++ bugs somewhere?
Thanks,
Marty Doane
Rapistan Systems
“David Gibbs” <dagibbs@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:8ptsae$sla$1@nntp.qnx.com…
< snip >
There are some bugs in the current version, especially with C++
compilation. The C compiler is pretty solid though. (I think
I’ve seen a couple of minor problems reported.)-David
check this one
http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/sep12_00-Dnkw.html
Pete DiMarco wrote:
Hi-
Now that the Watcom compiler is open source (> www.openwatcom.org> ), will this effect QSSL’s choice of compilers for QNX?
Just wondering,
- Pete