Re: open watcom compiling gcc on win32

["Edward S. Peschko" <esp5 at pge dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 06:29:13PM +0100, Oscar Fuentes wrote:
> "Edward S. Peschko" <esp5@pge.com> writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> How lack of MSVC++ ABI compatibility is hurting you?

well it is hurting me.. Here's an example -

Right now, the perl world on win32 is pretty much divided in half, with 
the cygwin perl on the one hand, and the activestate perl on the other.
python is the same way.

Hence, in order to do what I need to do, I need to maintain *two sets* of perls
and pythons. And some modules work on activestate's, some modules work on cygwin.

Hence, if I want to use expect in a script, I need to turn to cygwin.
When I want to use Win32::AdminMisc, I need to turn to ActiveState.
And if I need to bind to a third party API I need to turn to ActiveState.

I don't want to maintain two separate distributions just because the 
compilers squawk with each other. I want things to be transparent. It costs
me functionality because I can't both do Expect and Win32::AdminMisc in the 
same script, and because I can't link in certain third-party APIs (from 
Oracle, for instance.)

If g++ was really smart, it would provide a compatibility mode which 
translated VC++ headers/etc into g++ (preferably STL) components, 
a 'crutch' for people who want to dump VC++ altogether.

> BTW, FYI, Borland is not C++ ABI compatible with MSVC++.

reference? I see different.

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/1-software-group/borcbuil50en.html

> > so, how realistic is this? 
> 
> In the 3.x series, g++ uses a "industry-standard" C++ ABI. The old ABI
> was abandoned due to the extra work required for its maintenance. Have
> you asked MS if they plan to support that standard C++ ABI ? ;-)

yeah yeah yeah.. very funny... I would say that the standard by default 
is VC++.

> I'm not a gcc developer and so I can't say how much work your proposal
> requires (a lot, I guess) but as a MinGW user I can't see where the
> benefit are, other than using pre-built MSVC++ C++ libraries.

but that's just it. How many times have you had to link to proprietary
APIs like winrunner and oracle app-works, or to control apps like photoshop? 

No offense intended, but as it is, for large software vendors gcc is really 
just a toy on win32 - it fits into its own little world, it might be nice 
to play with, but I don't see any large companies releasing APIs targetted
at gcc/g++. 

I don't want it to be that way. I want to dump VC++ altogether and use 
gcc (since it is the compiler I use on unix). It is really annoying me that
I can't, and that I'm forced to look for an alternative. (ie: watcom)

Ed