From: Michael L. <ml...@lu...> - 2005-10-10 11:58:02
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:54:04 +0200, adrian suri wrote: >will take a closer look at the code, plus this case adds weight to >going the Open Watcom I was planning on looking into this compiler as well. For now I had started porting my new RexxUtil.dll functions to OS/2 as "RexxUtl2.dll" so it could, for now, sit along side IBM's RexxUtil.dll file. Anyway, for that I managed to get VisAge 3.65 compiler working, with the latest fixes on it. Getting a makefile created was the hardest part as there are little docs or examples out in public for it (nadda) so had to work with the IBM docs and learn the missing pieces on my own. Anyway, due to 3.65's lack of C++ support, the instability of the VisAge 4.0 product... ja, Open Watcom gets my vote as well. Were we sticking to plain C, then VisAge 3.65 would have been a great tool as it does not have all of the GUI tools 3.0 and 4.0 had... nice simple footprint on the OS w/o conflicts with WPS, et al... What OS/2 are you running on? I am on 4.52 here. I use the Tool Kit that comes on that install CD. Using Open Watcom, it was my intention to stick to the IBM Tool Kit header files and not the ones that come with OW. No one could suggest a fail proof way to "compile against the OW files now and then" which was suggested to me in their news group as a way to help them make sure their files are good... as someone else said in that group that one can not CRC check the output from the two sets of headers as the header difference can/will produce different binaries. A few commented there that they vote the IBM files the "gold standard" and use them. One other note on RexxUtil.dll, the 1.0 version of the source files for it in CVS have various OS/2 functions in them which have been cleaned out of the current versions. So other than picking up bug fixes etc from the current version, might be best to start with the 1.0 files for "function harvesting" and then again... from what Rick shared a sneek peek with me, the C++ version is radically different. Anyway, glad to see someone taking interest in OS/2. I happened to start on some book shelves this weekend, with the plan of unboxing my archive library which is where my OS/2 docs sit. As well, happen to have an order coming to build up probably our firm's final OS/2 box for a client, so will be tinkering around with THE LATEST in OS/2 builds soon. Michael Lueck Lueck Data Systems http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/ |