Mail Archives: djgpp/2009/02/03/03:48:38
"Rugxulo" <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> wrote in message
news:5a8fd366-52e8-4389-adde-8ea41684279c AT t39g2000prh DOT googlegroups DOT com...
>
[QEMU issues]
Yeah, I'll probably end up creating an harddisk image as you suggest...
copy everything to it...
> http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/libgw32c.htm
>
> "This is an implementation of a small part of GLibC, just enough to
> compile most Unix programs on MS Windows.
It's good to know what that minimum set is. As you may recall, I've keeping
track of similar info. Although from what they listed, that minimum set
seems quite large to me... and has way too much POSIX. It's amazing to
think about the fact that they didn't have the forsight to restrict coding
their utilities using only ANSI C - except where impossible. It's a huge
waste of the potential of their codebase, i.e., not portable except to POSIX
environments.
> It contains functions for
> passwords, process id's groups, and strings. Most are interfaces to
> the MS-Windows Win32 API. Some are just dummy functions that do
> nothing. "
The conversion to Win32 API makes it useless for non-Windows use...
although it probably edited out much useless *nix code. It's likely nowhere
near ANSI C. I just can't win. Although, it could be a good starting point
for an ANSI C compileable libc, if you wanted to deal with the GPL.
"Use of LibGw32c as a separate development library is very complicated. The
most practical way is to copy the source code for the necessary functions to
your own source code and to adapt your include files and Makefiles. For some
functions you must also link with the following standard libraries: -
libole32.a - libuuid.a - libwsock32.a"
Ah, my life story... never anything to reduce work.
From the description you quoted, I would've thought it was *new* code, not
reduced glibc. And, it's GPL even though there is no license... The
smaller size is important. Who needs (another) GPL'd libc? A non-GPL'd
libc would be useful. Although, I guess if you didn't want Cygwin's .dll,
it's one more option.
> Hmmm, actually all I had otherwise was just a bunch of links to GCC /
> EMX / FPC cross-compiler stuff (e.g. BinUtils Win32 cross-tools from
> FreePascal for various targets, various EMX DOS+OS/2 compilers +
> updates, various RSX + RSXNT + RSXNTDJ + NT09D files which are
> apparently very hard to find, as well as the old FPC 1.0.10 DOS+OS/2
> EMX version). I guess that's not hugely relevant here, but at least I
> found it interesting.
I've heard of EMX, but since I don't have OS/2... useless (?). I think I
looked at that RSX stuff. I don't recall what I thought about it. I'm
unfamiliar with the other combinations.
RP
- Raw text -