home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Julian F. Reschke <julian@GINA.UNI-MUENSTER.DE>
- Subject: RE: libraries
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 12:44:25 MET DST
- In-Reply-To: <9301180507.AA01188@acae127.cadence.com>; from "jwahar r. bammi" at Jan 18, 93 12:07 am
-
- > point well taken, and certainly we should be headed in that
- > direction. Gcc Tos/miNT of course are totally re-coinciled as far as the
- > headers go. i suspect that TCC compatibility should not be such a big deal,
- > and would involve maybe a few more symbols in <compiler.h> ( i am assuming
- > that TCC already had all the ansi C headers as we have in gcc libs, and that
- > the two are almost totally compatible, and what we need to recoincile are
- > various tos specific things. i have never seen the TCC headers so i may be
- > ttoally wrong). in any case, since i dont have TCC, nor do i have any
- > intentions of buying it, some ones going to have to volunteer.
-
- PureC (formerly Turbo C) is weak at POSIX stuff, but most of the ANSI C things
- is ok. And yes, the main problem are TOS/GEM prototypes and structure
- definitions. And, of course, I'm willing to do the PureC stuff.
-
- > >
- > > (1) setmode
- >
- > no problem here. in case you need a solution before we add it to
- > the libs:
- > (file)->_flag |= _IOBIN;
- >
-
- I think that I tried that and the jpeg test failed. I'll try it again.
-
-
- > > this is what Pure does). In particular, I don't understand why
- > > the MiNT libs use _DTA instead of DTA and so on.
- >
- > Ansi defines name spaces.
-
- Fine. But then, let's do this for *all* OS structures. Please understand:
- doing it right and portably will break all existing source anyway (if
- we don't use new filenames for the headers, as I proposed).
-
- --
- ________________ cut here _________________________
- Julian F. Reschke, Hensenstr. 142, D-W4400 Muenster
- eMail: julian@math.uni-muenster.de, jr@ms.maus.de
- ________ correct me if I'm wrong __________________
-