Hi,
When is this going to be available for RTP? I have heard that there are compile time and executable size problems, but the improved C++ support will be useful for me…
Tom
Tom <the_wid@my-deja.com> wrote:
Hi,
Hello Tom,
When is this going to be available for RTP?
I have heard that there are compile time and executable size problems,
but the improved C++ support will be useful for me…
gcc 3.0 is not on our list yet. It is a new release and from what
we’ve hear on the gcc mailing lists, it is slower to compile and
prodeuces bigger and slower code.
Best Regards,
Marcin
Tom
Me too (just in case anyone is counting 
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom [mailto:the_wid@my-deja.com]
Posted At: Monday, August 13, 2001 3:46 AM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: gcc 3.0
Hi,
When is this going to be available for RTP? I have heard that there are
compile time and executable size problems, but the improved C++ support
will be useful for me…
Tom
gcc 3.0 is not on our list yet. It is a new release and from what
we’ve hear on the gcc mailing lists, it is slower to compile and
prodeuces bigger and slower code.
If it is even slower then the current gcc then don’t bother. Upgrading
from 6.0 to 6.1 has already tripled my compile times so I don’t think
I can handle any more ‘improvments’…
Previously, Tools Mail Account wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
Tom <> the_wid@my-deja.com> > wrote:
Hi,Hello Tom,
When is this going to be available for RTP?
I have heard that there are compile time and executable size problems,
but the improved C++ support will be useful for me…gcc 3.0 is not on our list yet. It is a new release and from what
we’ve hear on the gcc mailing lists, it is slower to compile and
prodeuces bigger and slower code.Best Regards,
Marcin
How about 2.95.3? Is that in the latest RTP release? There are quite
a few bugs I’ve hit in 2.95.2, particularly compiler crashes in g++
at O3 optimisation that I’m hoping have been fixed…
Tom
Tom <the_wid@my-deja.com> wrote:
Previously, Tools Mail Account wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
Tom <> the_wid@my-deja.com> > wrote:
Hi,Hello Tom,
When is this going to be available for RTP?
I have heard that there are compile time and executable size problems,
but the improved C++ support will be useful for me…gcc 3.0 is not on our list yet. It is a new release and from what
we’ve hear on the gcc mailing lists, it is slower to compile and
prodeuces bigger and slower code.Best Regards,
Marcin
How about 2.95.3? Is that in the latest RTP release? There are quite
a few bugs I’ve hit in 2.95.2, particularly compiler crashes in g++
at O3 optimisation that I’m hoping have been fixed…
2.95.3 will be looked at soon, but isn’t really a very high priority.
Marcin
Tom
Tools Mail Account <tools@qnx.com> wrote:
: Tom <the_wid@my-deja.com> wrote:
:> Previously, Tools Mail Account wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
:>> Tom <the_wid@my-deja.com> wrote:
:>> > Hi,
:>>
:> How about 2.95.3? Is that in the latest RTP release? There are quite
:> a few bugs I’ve hit in 2.95.2, particularly compiler crashes in g++
:> at O3 optimisation that I’m hoping have been fixed…
: 2.95.3 will be looked at soon, but isn’t really a very high priority.
I would say the 3.0.x series would be more appropriate candidates,
in the hope that compile time for C++ will improve 
: Marcin
:> Tom
“Tools Mail Account” <tools@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:9l99kr$c10$2@nntp.qnx.com…
Tom <> the_wid@my-deja.com> > wrote:
Previously, Tools Mail Account wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
Tom <> the_wid@my-deja.com> > wrote:
Hi,Hello Tom,
When is this going to be available for RTP?
I have heard that there are compile time and executable size problems,
but the improved C++ support will be useful for me…gcc 3.0 is not on our list yet. It is a new release and from what
we’ve hear on the gcc mailing lists, it is slower to compile and
prodeuces bigger and slower code.Best Regards,
Marcin
How about 2.95.3? Is that in the latest RTP release? There are quite
a few bugs I’ve hit in 2.95.2, particularly compiler crashes in g++
at O3 optimisation that I’m hoping have been fixed…2.95.3 will be looked at soon, but isn’t really a very high priority.
Ouch that hurt, compiler bug fix not very high priority ? For
a development platform?
Marcin
Tom
Is anyone up on the status of the Open Source port of Watcom?
Will it ever see QRTP?
Damn, I loved that thing!
Bill Caroselli
“Tools Mail Account” <tools@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:9l99kr$c10$2@nntp.qnx.com…
How about 2.95.3? Is that in the latest RTP release? There are quite
a few bugs I’ve hit in 2.95.2, particularly compiler crashes in g++
at O3 optimisation that I’m hoping have been fixed…2.95.3 will be looked at soon, but isn’t really a very high priority.
Might I respectfully suggest that SOME/ANY good C/C++ compiler become a VERY
HIGH PRIORITY?
To those of us used to Watcom I find that the compilers for RTP is a week
spot, WRT, compiler memory requirements, speed, speed and size of the
executable programs.
Though I’m very impressed with the size of executables due to the shared
libraries. We know that we can’t give the compilers credit for that.
Bill Caroselli
Mario Charest <mcharest@zinformatic.com> wrote:
: “Tools Mail Account” <tools@qnx.com> wrote in message
: news:9l99kr$c10$2@nntp.qnx.com…
:> Tom <the_wid@my-deja.com> wrote:
:> > Previously, Tools Mail Account wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools:
:> >> Tom <the_wid@my-deja.com> wrote:
:> >> > Hi,
:> >>
:> >> Hello Tom,
:> >>
:> >> > When is this going to be available for RTP?
:> >> I have heard that there are compile time and executable size problems,
:> >> but the improved C++ support will be useful for me…
:> >>
:> >> gcc 3.0 is not on our list yet. It is a new release and from what
:> >> we’ve hear on the gcc mailing lists, it is slower to compile and
:> >> prodeuces bigger and slower code.
:> >>
:> >> Best Regards,
:> >>
:> >>
:> >> Marcin
:> >>
:>
:> > How about 2.95.3? Is that in the latest RTP release? There are quite
:> > a few bugs I’ve hit in 2.95.2, particularly compiler crashes in g++
:> > at O3 optimisation that I’m hoping have been fixed…
:>
:> 2.95.3 will be looked at soon, but isn’t really a very high priority.
:>
: Ouch that hurt, compiler bug fix not very high priority ? For
: a development platform?
Not exactly, 2.95.3 was created to provide ABI compatibility.
i.e. ABI compatible with previous releases of gcc 2.7.x with
some vendors C compilers etc …
Same for the gcc release tag “2.96” done by RedHat,
IIRC, 2.95.3 could not compile GNU/Linux kernels withouth some modifications,
so “2.96” was created.
So the “raison d’etre” of 2.95.3 is not enhancement of 2.95.2, speaking
in term of C/C++ compiler enhancement.
All efforts were targetted to gcc-3.0 . But gcc-3.0 is a “.0”
which means major changes. The 3.0.x series will see
the light of day later(I expect this fall) and I beleive the tools group
will focus on it.
I agree, Watcom would be nice if it was brought up to the ANSI/ISO
C++. gcc 3.0 is almost there now (from what I hear).
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) [mailto:qtps@earthlink.net]
Posted At: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:27 PM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0
Is anyone up on the status of the Open Source port of Watcom?
Will it ever see QRTP?
Damn, I loved that thing!
Bill Caroselli
was (is) a super thing - in particular the debugger “wd” - compared to
“ddd”/“gdb” Grrrr!
Rennie Allen schrieb:
I agree, Watcom would be nice if it was brought up to the ANSI/ISO
C++. gcc 3.0 is almost there now (from what I hear).-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) [mailto:> qtps@earthlink.net> ]
Posted At: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:27 PM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0Is anyone up on the status of the Open Source port of Watcom?
Will it ever see QRTP?
Damn, I loved that thing!
Bill Caroselli
–
Dr. Jörg Kampmann - IBK-Consult for Real-Time and Embedded Systems
D-31228 Peine - Tel.:+49-177-276-3140 - Fax: +49-5171-13385
http://www.ibk-consult.de
===== QNX is the better Choice for Real-Time: http://www.qnx.com ====
I believe one of the biggest problems with the watcom suite would be
targetting other platforms. Don’t forget that we are broadening our scope
from x86 to quite a few different CPUs. gcc may not be the best but it IS
the most portable and I think having uniformity across platforms is a very
high priority for us.
cheers,
Kris
Joerg Kampmann <joerg.kampmann@ibk-consult.de> wrote:
was (is) a super thing - in particular the debugger “wd” - compared to
“ddd”/“gdb” Grrrr!Rennie Allen schrieb:
I agree, Watcom would be nice if it was brought up to the ANSI/ISO
C++. gcc 3.0 is almost there now (from what I hear).-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) [mailto:> qtps@earthlink.net> ]
Posted At: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:27 PM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0Is anyone up on the status of the Open Source port of Watcom?
Will it ever see QRTP?
Damn, I loved that thing!
Bill Caroselli
–
Dr. Jorg Kampmann - IBK-Consult for Real-Time and Embedded Systems
D-31228 Peine - Tel.:+49-177-276-3140 - Fax: +49-5171-13385
http://www.ibk-consult.de
===== QNX is the better Choice for Real-Time: > http://www.qnx.com > ====
–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“You’re bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything” - Donald Knuth
I was refering to the V 11.0 Watcom.
Bill Caroselli
“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C980BC@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…
I agree, Watcom would be nice if it was brought up to the ANSI/ISO
C++. gcc 3.0 is almost there now (from what I hear).
Agreed, as it should be.
I don’t know squat about compiler technology, but I thought that it was only
the final stage that actually generates code for the taget system.
Hey, I haven’t heard anyone use the “T” word for a long time.
Bill Caroselli
“Kris Eric Warkentin” <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:9lb6g7$hq2$2@nntp.qnx.com…
I believe one of the biggest problems with the watcom suite would be
targetting other platforms. Don’t forget that we are broadening our scope
from x86 to quite a few different CPUs. gcc may not be the best but it IS
the most portable and I think having uniformity across platforms is a very
high priority for us.
Well, if Watcom was ANSI/ISO C++ and g++ was ANSI/ISO C++ then we could
use Watcom on IA, and gcc for everything else. Has anyone talked to
Intel about funding the development of Open Watcom since it would give
their processors a competitive advantage (from a development POV). I
know that QSSL is processor neutral, but IMO there is nothing wrong with
QSSL suggesting to Intel that throwing a few dollars, and some manpower
at Open Watcom might be good for everyone (especially them).
-----Original Message-----
From: Kris Eric Warkentin [mailto:kewarken@qnx.com]
Posted At: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 5:45 AM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0
I believe one of the biggest problems with the watcom suite would be
targetting other platforms. Don’t forget that we are broadening our
scope
from x86 to quite a few different CPUs. gcc may not be the best but it
IS
the most portable and I think having uniformity across platforms is a
very
high priority for us.
cheers,
Kris
Joerg Kampmann <joerg.kampmann@ibk-consult.de> wrote:
was (is) a super thing - in particular the debugger “wd” - compared to
“ddd”/“gdb” Grrrr!Rennie Allen schrieb:
I agree, Watcom would be nice if it was brought up to the ANSI/ISO
C++. gcc 3.0 is almost there now (from what I hear).-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) [mailto:> qtps@earthlink.net> ]
Posted At: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:27 PM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0Is anyone up on the status of the Open Source port of Watcom?
Will it ever see QRTP?
Damn, I loved that thing!
Bill Caroselli
–
Dr. Jorg Kampmann - IBK-Consult for Real-Time and Embedded Systems
D-31228 Peine - Tel.:+49-177-276-3140 - Fax: +49-5171-13385
http://www.ibk-consult.de
===== QNX is the better Choice for Real-Time: > http://www.qnx.com > ====
–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“You’re bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything” - Donald Knuth
Are there problems here with object file format and link editing to ELF?
Are these large or small problems?
Rennie Allen wrote:
Well, if Watcom was ANSI/ISO C++ and g++ was ANSI/ISO C++ then we could
use Watcom on IA, and gcc for everything else. Has anyone talked to
Intel about funding the development of Open Watcom since it would give
their processors a competitive advantage (from a development POV). I
know that QSSL is processor neutral, but IMO there is nothing wrong with
QSSL suggesting to Intel that throwing a few dollars, and some manpower
at Open Watcom might be good for everyone (especially them).-----Original Message-----
From: Kris Eric Warkentin [mailto:> kewarken@qnx.com> ]
Posted At: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 5:45 AM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0I believe one of the biggest problems with the watcom suite would be
targetting other platforms. Don’t forget that we are broadening our
scope
from x86 to quite a few different CPUs. gcc may not be the best but it
IS
the most portable and I think having uniformity across platforms is a
very
high priority for us.cheers,
Kris
Joerg Kampmann <> joerg.kampmann@ibk-consult.de> > wrote:
was (is) a super thing - in particular the debugger “wd” - compared to
“ddd”/“gdb” Grrrr!Rennie Allen schrieb:
I agree, Watcom would be nice if it was brought up to the ANSI/ISO
C++. gcc 3.0 is almost there now (from what I hear).-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) [mailto:> qtps@earthlink.net> ]
Posted At: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:27 PM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0Is anyone up on the status of the Open Source port of Watcom?
Will it ever see QRTP?
Damn, I loved that thing!
Bill Caroselli
–
Dr. Jorg Kampmann - IBK-Consult for Real-Time and Embedded Systems
D-31228 Peine - Tel.:+49-177-276-3140 - Fax: +49-5171-13385
http://www.ibk-consult.de
===== QNX is the better Choice for Real-Time: > http://www.qnx.com > ====–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“You’re bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything” - Donald Knuth
Why worry about that. We have a language standard (a hard won language
standard). Watcom is married to Intel (like VC++) and consequently does
Intel well (like VC++). If you made Watcom multiplatform it would
likely be no better than gcc. Having two compilers (besides the extra
disk space) is not at all inconvenient (assuming that both faithfully
implement the language standard), heck the avg user need not even know
they’re using a different compiler (besides the increased compilation
speed), just have qcc use Watcom when the host and target are both x86.
People will simply have a better “user experience” (to use the latest
fad phrase) on an Intel platform (this would have to make Intel happy
- at least happy enough to throw some scraps at the Open Watcom
project). If Intel doesn’t want to do it, call up AMD…
Bill is implying that Watcom 11.0 is ANSI/ISO (I’m not sure about that
myself), if this is the case, then surely this can be made to happen.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Douthat [mailto:ddouthat@faac.com]
Posted At: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 2:37 PM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0
Are there problems here with object file format and link editing to ELF?
Are these large or small problems?
Rennie Allen wrote:
Well, if Watcom was ANSI/ISO C++ and g++ was ANSI/ISO C++ then we
could
use Watcom on IA, and gcc for everything else. Has anyone talked to
Intel about funding the development of Open Watcom since it would give
their processors a competitive advantage (from a development POV). I
know that QSSL is processor neutral, but IMO there is nothing wrong
with
QSSL suggesting to Intel that throwing a few dollars, and some
manpower
at Open Watcom might be good for everyone (especially them).-----Original Message-----
From: Kris Eric Warkentin [mailto:> kewarken@qnx.com> ]
Posted At: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 5:45 AM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0I believe one of the biggest problems with the watcom suite would be
targetting other platforms. Don’t forget that we are broadening our
scope
from x86 to quite a few different CPUs. gcc may not be the best but
it
IS
the most portable and I think having uniformity across platforms is a
very
high priority for us.cheers,
Kris
Joerg Kampmann <> joerg.kampmann@ibk-consult.de> > wrote:
was (is) a super thing - in particular the debugger “wd” - compared
to
“ddd”/“gdb” Grrrr!Rennie Allen schrieb:
I agree, Watcom would be nice if it was brought up to the
ANSI/ISO
C++. gcc 3.0 is almost there now (from what I hear).-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) [mailto:> qtps@earthlink.net> ]
Posted At: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:27 PM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0Is anyone up on the status of the Open Source port of Watcom?
Will it ever see QRTP?
Damn, I loved that thing!
Bill Caroselli
–
=====================================================================
Dr. Jorg Kampmann - IBK-Consult for Real-Time and Embedded Systems
D-31228 Peine - Tel.:+49-177-276-3140 - Fax: +49-5171-13385
http://www.ibk-consult.de
===== QNX is the better Choice for Real-Time: > http://www.qnx.com–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“You’re bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything” - Donald Knuth
“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C982A9@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…
Why worry about that. We have a language standard (a hard won language
standard). Watcom is married to Intel(like VC++)
Before Microsoft drop support for different processor. VC was available
for other CPU then Intel. On Windows CE VC can be use to build
executable for a wide range of processors. That that statement isn’t
quite true.
and consequently does
Intel well (like VC++). If you made Watcom multiplatform it would
likely be no better than gcc. Having two compilers (besides the extra
disk space) is not at all inconvenient (assuming that both faithfully
implement the language standard), heck the avg user need not even know
they’re using a different compiler (besides the increased compilation
speed), just have qcc use Watcom when the host and target are both x86.
People will simply have a better “user experience” (to use the latest
fad phrase) on an Intel platform (this would have to make Intel happy
- at least happy enough to throw some scraps at the Open Watcom
project). If Intel doesn’t want to do it, call up AMD…Bill is implying that Watcom 11.0 is ANSI/ISO (I’m not sure about that
myself), if this is the case, then surely this can be made to happen.-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Douthat [mailto:> ddouthat@faac.com> ]
Posted At: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 2:37 PM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0
Are there problems here with object file format and link editing to ELF?
Are these large or small problems?Rennie Allen wrote:
Well, if Watcom was ANSI/ISO C++ and g++ was ANSI/ISO C++ then we
could
use Watcom on IA, and gcc for everything else. Has anyone talked to
Intel about funding the development of Open Watcom since it would give
their processors a competitive advantage (from a development POV). I
know that QSSL is processor neutral, but IMO there is nothing wrong
with
QSSL suggesting to Intel that throwing a few dollars, and some
manpower
at Open Watcom might be good for everyone (especially them).-----Original Message-----
From: Kris Eric Warkentin [mailto:> kewarken@qnx.com> ]
Posted At: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 5:45 AM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0I believe one of the biggest problems with the watcom suite would be
targetting other platforms. Don’t forget that we are broadening our
scope
from x86 to quite a few different CPUs. gcc may not be the best but
it
IS
the most portable and I think having uniformity across platforms is a
very
high priority for us.cheers,
Kris
Joerg Kampmann <> joerg.kampmann@ibk-consult.de> > wrote:
was (is) a super thing - in particular the debugger “wd” - compared
to
“ddd”/“gdb” Grrrr!Rennie Allen schrieb:
I agree, Watcom would be nice if it was brought up to the
ANSI/ISO
C++. gcc 3.0 is almost there now (from what I hear).-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) [mailto:> qtps@earthlink.net> ]
Posted At: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:27 PM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0Is anyone up on the status of the Open Source port of Watcom?
Will it ever see QRTP?
Damn, I loved that thing!
Bill Caroselli
–
=====================================================================
Dr. Jorg Kampmann - IBK-Consult for Real-Time and Embedded Systems
D-31228 Peine - Tel.:+49-177-276-3140 - Fax: +49-5171-13385
http://www.ibk-consult.de
===== QNX is the better Choice for Real-Time: > http://www.qnx.com–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“You’re bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything” - Donald Knuth