gcc 3.0

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.qnxrtp.devtools
21

In article <64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9814D@exchangecal.hq.csical.com>,
Rennie Allen <RAllen@csical.com> 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

Feel free. Intel already has a significant means of creating a competitive
edge for their processors, since they have their own high performance
compiler plug-ins for VisualStudio.

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 3.0

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

–

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

–

Steve Furr email: furr@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd.

22

In article <3B7999EC.984BD959@faac.com>,
Dean Douthat <ddouthat@faac.com> wrote:

Are there problems here with object file format and link editing to ELF?
Are these large or small problems?

Yes; they are large. Not as much from a point of view of ELF format support
as from the perspective of PIC code generation.


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 3.0

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 3.0

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

–

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

–

Steve Furr email: furr@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd.

23

Doesn’t do them much good in the embedded space. If Intel isn’t
interested, then maybe AMD is ?

-----Original Message-----
From: furr@qnx.com (Steve Furr) [mailto:furr@qnx.com]
Posted At: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:34 AM
Posted To: devtools
Conversation: gcc 3.0
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0


In article
<64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9814D@exchangecal.hq.csical.com>,
Rennie Allen <RAllen@csical.com> 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

Feel free. Intel already has a significant means of creating a
competitive
edge for their processors, since they have their own high performance
compiler plug-ins for VisualStudio.

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 3.0

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

–

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

–

Steve Furr email: furr@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd.

24

Hi Rennie et al

Watcom 11.0 had many/most of the final draft features but DID predate the
final draft.

Bill Caroselli


“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++) 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 3.0

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 3.0

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

–

=====================================================================
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