Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology

OpenWatcom C++ Compiler Code Finally Released 32

Posted by timothy from the more-tools dept.
udif writes: "Almost 2 years after it was originally announced, the first drop of the OpenWatcom C++ source code is here. 18,000 files, 78MB uncompressed source code (about 28MB compressed). It's version 0.80 and is incomplete, but most of the code is here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenWatcom C++ Compiler Code Finally Released More

OpenWatcom C++ Compiler Code Finally Released

Comments Filter:
  • How does it compare to gcc? kcc?
    export keyword?
    • Not ANSI conformant and export keyword not implemented. The only C++ compiler that is fully conformant and the first that supports export is Edison Design Group. See comp.lang.c++.moderated.

  • OpenWatcom Questions (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can you compile and run a "Hello World" example in C or C++ yet?

    To build OpenWatcom, where do you get the OpenWatcom binaries?

    I heard at one time that Win-OS2, the Windows 3.1 that came with OS/2, was compiled using Watcom C because IBM considered Watcom C the faster compiler over their own and Microsoft's.

    Is anybody considering to "port" OpenWatcom to Linux?

    I noticed that the Windows and OS/2 compilers will be included. What about DOS and the DOS 32-bit Extender? Are the compilers for other platforms going to be included?

    Thanks for your answers,
    Daniel

    • I would love to se the Watcom Debugger ported to Linux. If you like visual debuggers then I think Watcom hsa some features missing from Microsoft Visual Studio debugger.

      Rather than try to port the whole compiler to Linux it might be better to try and get Watcom and Gcc to work together for example by supporting the same object file formats.

    • >> Can you compile and run a "Hello World" example in C or C++ yet? > To build OpenWatcom, where do you get the OpenWatcom binaries? > Is anybody considering to "port" OpenWatcom to Linux? > I noticed that the Windows and OS/2 compilers will be included. What about DOS and the DOS 32-bit Extender? > Are the compilers for other platforms going to be included? Yes and currently are.
    • I had hard that but most of the DOS based games for the PC were compiles using Watcom. Even Microsoft provided stuff to use Watcom under WinG and early DirectX.

      Hum. I asume you are refering to DOS4GW? Been a while but I think all it was was a link with the programmer doing calls through somthing but not really direct to DOS4GW.

      Aug for those days of "owning" the machine! Not this mess Microsoft created!

  • Good news for TeraTerm users (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ashurbanipal ( 578639 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @10:44AM (#3530136)
    Teraterm [vector.co.jp] is an excellent open-source terminal emulator for Windows machines, which Robert O'Callahan [zip.com.au] has extended to incorporate SSH [openssh.com].

    The two problems with TeraTerm are:
    1) the weird license prohibits distributing any fixes to the core code (you can only distribute add-ons, which it supports). Luckily the core is not buggy, it's just got some areas where improvements could be made.
    2) it reportedly compiles best under Watcom C/C++, which was (until now) a rare beasty.

    • The BIGGER problem with Teraterm is that the SSH module doesn't and won't implement SSH v2. At this point SSH v1 is about as secure as telnet and should be disabled unless there is a reason that makes it absolutely necessary. I think it's safe to say that by now PuTTY [greenend.org.uk], which progresses at an amazing rate, has claimed any market share that Termaterm had among the freeware SSH clients. It is an excellent tool.

      • Re:TeraTerm .vs. PuTTY (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ashurbanipal ( 578639 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @12:21PM (#3530920)
        Glad to hear PuTTY is doing well; I've always liked the attitude of the creator (as expressed by his commentary - I don't know the guy). But I don't think Teraterm has lost much ground yet.

        Teraterm is completely scriptable and has an embedded language for doing so. Putty doesn't. Teraterm has an extension interface (which is how SSH is supported) rather than being a code monolith (granted, with Teraterm's weird license and Putty's "fully open" source, this is not a big deal). Teraterm scripting is fairly well entrenched in many corporations and universities.

        And as for you comments in RE: SSH v1 security I think you need to do a little more research; O'Callahan's SSH extension specifically disables those portions of SSH v1 that are known to be crackable, and in any case to state "SSH v1 is about as secure as telnet" is grossly incorrect - you can pick up telnet passwords with a packet sniffer, while hacking SSH is quite challenging.

        Nonetheless I hope PuTTY continues to improve and eventually gets all the capabilities of TeraTerm. It's just not quite there yet.
    • I find the notion of a C++ program that "compiles best" under some compiler pretty odd. It may be true, but that's really only half the story.

      The full story is something like "Program X uses a bunch of non-standard compiler extensions that only Compiler Y implements" or "Program X uses some really obscure standards-compliant feature that only Compiler Y implements correctly" or "Program X relies on the implementation-specific memory layout implemented by Compiler Y".

      Since GNU C++ is quite good when it comes to standards compliance, I suspect that if a program "compiles best" under Watcom C++, it must be using some non-standard or unportable features. Does anybody know for sure?

      • Since GNU C++ is quite good when it comes to standards compliance

        I'm not sure how it compares to other compilers, but g++ certainly has its share of nonstandard extensions. No compiler is innocent when it comes to being extension-free. :-)

        void foo (int a) { int b[a]; }, for instance, really isn't kosher, but gcc/g++ allow it.
        1. All compilers have bugs, quirks, and different optimizing algorithms. If your portable C++ code makes use of advanced template features, and only watcom will compile it or generate proper code, the fullstory may be that other compilers are not up to snuff.
        2. When the compiler competition was fiercer, compilers would recognize certain patterns and generate very aggressively optimized code so they'd look good in the benchmarks. If your code is similar to drystones, and Watcom produces the best drystone code, Watcom might generate the fastest code
        3. Most people develop with one compiler only. If I develop under Watcom, and did my debugging under watcom, it might work best under Watcom because of differences in the libraries, OSes and APIs used would cause problems
        4. GCC uses a 32-bit integer (most of the time). If you're developing for MSDOS, you might want to use 16-bit integers. Or maybe you need support for 64-bit integers or 128-bit integers. The C spec tells the relative sice of the types, not absolute, so different integer sizes, assumptions about packing of fields within a struct, byte alignment, endian issues, etc, may be non-portable, but they're not invalid if you are using a specific compiler and don't want 30 lines of #ifdefs for every possible compiler and architecture.
    • Teraterm [vector.co.jp] is an excellent open-source terminal emulator for Windows machines [...] 1) the weird license prohibits distributing any fixes to the core code

      Then it's not open-source, is it?
  • The "Open" Watcom License [openwatcom.org] restricts the use of the software as follows:

    2.1 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal research and development and/or Personal Use...

    where "Personal Use" is defined as:

    1.8 "Personal Use" means use of Covered Code by an individual solely for his or her personal, private and non-commercial purposes. An individual's use of Covered Code in his or her capacity as an officer, employee, member, independent contractor or agent of a corporation, business or organization (commercial or non-commercial) does not qualify as Personal Use.

    This is not an Open Source license. Sybase has misunderstood the meaning of the term. Yes, the submitted this to the OSI. May the OSI swiftly reject it.

    • Take a look at section 2.2 which covers non-personal use of the code: It looks like an open-source license to me. The section you quote above just removes the need to make source code available if you only use it for your own personal use.
      2.2 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and Deploy Covered Code, provided that in each instance:

      (a) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to the Source Code of the Covered Code;

      (b) You must duplicate, to the extent it does not already exist, the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all Your Modifications, and cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files and the date of any change;

      (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available under the terms of this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site);

      (d) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code; and

      (e) the object code form of the Covered Code may be distributed under Your own license agreement, provided that such license agreement contains terms no less protective of Sybase and each Contributor than the terms of this License, and stating that any provisions which differ from this License are offered by You alone and not by any other party.

  • Anyone remembers Zortech C++?
    It was my introduction to "open source" -- a great C++ compiler for DOS and windows 3.11 (maybe something else, I don't know). It was commercial of course, but shipped with full library sources. Maybe even compiler sources, I don't remember.
    Zortech was later aquired by Symatnec, I think....
    • The very stable Zortech compilers became the flaky Symantec C/C++ compilers, both for Macintosh and DOS/Windows.

      Symantec bought the Think C and Pascal compilers for the Macintosh earlier. These compilers had approximately 97 percent of the market, and Symantec lost total market share within about 3 years, to Metrowerks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close