Re: using elks-libc for DOS development

Ryan Underwood
2004-03-05T21:44:19Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1778 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:03:18AM +0000, David Given wrote:
> > would be a waste, as well as the bloat of glibc. I guess there is
> > Open Watcom now, but does anyone have experience doing small footprint
> > (8086 <= 1MB) C development with it?
>
> Nope. I gather it works, though.

So did I. I think I will give it a shot. I preferred bcc/ELKS-libc
because I could build directly from a Linux host without having to use
WINE/DOSEMU. But I think Watcom will suffice if the ELKS libc proves to
be too slim.

> However, if you know where to look there are a number of free 16-bit DOS
> compilers. Leaving aside all the various CP/M86 compilers --- which tend to
> be K&R only and only compile tiny mode --- a quick web search reveals these:
>
> http://www.htsoft.com/products/pacific/
> http://www.digitalmars.com/download/freecompiler.html

Thanks. I actually ran across these while digging around but didn't pay
much attention. Both look like fairly complete packages.

> You may be better off sticking with Turbo C, however; it is free, and you seem
> to be set up for it.

Well, by "set up for it" I've downloaded a copy and ran it in DOSEMU. I
also have some experience with it, having used it years ago. But, I
don't know if it is right for an embedded project. Are there any
licensing issues to worry about or any rot like that? I liked the idea
of using FreeDOS/RxDOS and the ELKS C library because there were no
restrictions on any of them besides the *GPL ones of needing to make the
source code available to end users. I'm not sure what using a
proprietary C library would get me into. I think with the two compilers
you mentioned, I should be safe though.

thanks!

--
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]