From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 378 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2004 00:47:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32644 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2004 00:47:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail01.pge.com) (131.89.128.13) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2004 00:47:26 -0000 Received: from mail03.comp.pge.com (mail03dmz [10.252.0.59]) by mail01.pge.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i0U0lGr14353; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mdssdev05.comp.pge.com (mdssdev05.comp.pge.com [10.244.96.61]) by mail03.comp.pge.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i0U0lEW17130; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:47:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from esp5@localhost) by mdssdev05.comp.pge.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA15196; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:44:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: mdssdev05.comp.pge.com: esp5 set sender to esp5@pge.com using -f Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:20:00 -0000 From: "Edward S. Peschko" To: DJ Delorie Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: open watcom compiling gcc on win32 Message-ID: <20040130004432.GA15097@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com> References: <20040127073509.GB10278@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com> <20040127183526.GA11059@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com> <20040129232602.GA14941@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com> <200401292346.i0TNk4CT028713@greed.delorie.com> <20040130002556.GA14985@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com> <200401300037.i0U0bfwT024691@greed.delorie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401300037.i0U0bfwT024691@greed.delorie.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg02237.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 07:37:41PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > well, no, I wouldn't say that I've 'left the realm of gcc' - after > > all, the objects that gcc produce, and how certain features of g++ > > on win32 work (RTTI, etc) would need to change and have to work > > smoothly with ld, and I would argue that it is a *steering > > committee* decision that could prompt such a change in cygwin. > > In that case, you weren't specific enough the first time around. To > me, "objects" refers to object files, which the assembler (not gcc) > produces. "Compatible" for dlls usually means the system can load > them, tools can manipulate them, etc. ABI compatibility at the high > level (C++) is a different story. Ok, I wasn't being specific enough. That is exactly what I want - visual C++ ABI compatibility at the 'high level' on win32. In a capsule, my argument is that it opens up a world of possibility for gcc/g++ on win32, it is completely feasible through open watcom. so, how realistic is this? Ed