Subj : FileMgr To : Maurice Kinal From : Bob Jones Date : Sat Nov 01 2003 10:50 pm ... MK> On the surface this sounds good but a simple port of DOS based source to MK> a completely different OS is no more trivial then a MK> port of Unix based source to DOS. It would be nice if MK> it were simple but it isn't. Some stuff, such as math, MK> can be ported quite readily given a common definition of shorts, floats, MK> etc. but when it comes to communications based software MK> the differences rear their ugly heads immediately. Serial port communication has always been an issue when you get down to lower level routines and are concerned about real-time interaction, such as Max does.... But I believe Scott already had the Maximus code setup to compartmentilize the serial port handling even for DOS, OS/2 and Win32 systems. So, yes, there are potentially different serial drivers (and some other hardware issues) that will have to be handled for each OS class and or hardware class, but most of this is more common now due to similar hardware.... On the other hand, we were discussing FileMgr. What does it have to do with serial ports or modems? When I mentioned that I expect FileMgr is like MFM, part of what I am saying is that the program is to assist the Sysop and is not used by the users, and as such is run from the system console.... MK> Where there is favourable portation is only where MK> hardware, such as the PC itself, is the same. Once we start considering MK> compatibility issues with things like Sparcs, for MK> instance, then we quickly run into humumgous problems. Well, I believe Wes has already been successfully compiling the Maximus code on at least two non-intel platforms, including one 64 bit CPU target.... If you work in this type of environment long enough you learn some tricks of the trade for setting up defines, pargmas, etc., for dealing with compiling across multiple platforms.... MK> Somewhere a line needs to be drawn and if a Unixie MK> enviroment is the consideration then multiusage is most MK> definetly a prime consideration. Please note that I said OS/2 and Win32. I did not say DOS. This means there is built in support for multi-tasking, and potentially (maybe limited) support for multi-usesr..... But we were talking FileMgr, not maximus on this discussion, so, the file manager (from my perspective) is a Sysop utility that doesn't need multi-user support.... MK> If all we're after is MK> to appease the DOS and OS/2 players then the arguement MK> becomes what compiler the source requires to be MK> compatible with and whether or not the source as is, or MK> with whatever modifications, can indeed be successfully MK> compiled on those platforms, unless of course the issue MK> is whether gcc on Linux is to be employed to compile MK> for those platforms. BJ> Concerning GCC, it has ports to OS/2 (EMX) and to Win32 platforms, MK> Sort of. gcc claims no compatibility to OS/2 but does MK> recommend emx as a viable alternative. I'd have to dig to find that technicallity.... The EMX port of GCC is GCC ported to run under OS/2 using the EMX dynamic link libraries. The EMX libraries implement a number of hooks that transpose Unix based API calls to OS/2 based API calls..... Similar capability exists for Win32 based systems, and I've even seen the code pointed to on a Microsoft web site..... BJ> so, depending on how the code is written, Unix / Linix / *BSD and MK> Less problems there given common tools and the fact MK> that they are all multiuser enviroments. OS/2 also has the common tool set available. And with Cyrix (sp?) Win32 platforms also have the common tool set available..... BJ> OS/2 and Win32 platforms can be supported from the same code -- BJ> assuming some guidelines and design ideas are followed. MK> Yes and no. Something will have to go and I get the MK> feeling it will be multiusage in favour of OS/2 and DOS MK> compatibility. Personally I don't count Winxx as a MK> seperate OS from DOS although DOS people might argue MK> that. Please again note I did not say DOS. I said OS/2 and Win32 specificlly to avoid issue of lack of multi-tasking.... OS/2 provides true multi-tasking support. I won't go into the issues with Win (16 and 32) multi-tasking, but the later Win32 systems I believe have reasonable support.... And again, this thread (see subject line) was concerning FileMgr and not Maximus..... BJ> If compiling under and for OS/2 and/or Win32 targets, Open Watcom is BJ> another free C compiler. MK> On those enviroments. Exactly..... BJ> Current OS/2 support compilers BJ> include ports of GCC (EMX) and Open Watcom, both of which are "free" BJ> software....] MK> But that isn't the prime consideration or at least not here it isn't. Understood.... Take care..... Bob Jones, 1:343/41 --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: Top Hat 2 BBS (1:343/41) .