[vbox-dev] Unhappy with recent developments

[Pau Garcia i Quiles]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Michael Thayer
<michael.thayer at oracle.com>wrote:

I'm curious, why move from bcc (ancient, unmaintained for ages) to
>> Watcom (which looked to me barely maintained and developed) instead of
>> something more modern like gcc, clang, etc? I guess Watcom has some
>> unique features that make it more fit for BIOS' compilation, but other
>> than having read Watcom was used in the past for embedded because it
>> generated small code, I cannot think of anything.
>>
>> (and please let's not make this a licenses, freedom, etc discussion: I'm
>> asking a purely technical question)
>>
> To cut a long story short, Watcom was the free-est compiler available
> which could generate decent 16-bit x86 code.  bcc was always rather painful
> to use due to it's very limited support of 16-bit Intel memory models, and
> eventually the pain got too much.
>

What would happen if some other compiler was used? Have you tried faucc?

http://packages.debian.org/sid/faucc
http://www3.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/Research/FAUmachine/

Or is a C++ compiler required?

-- 
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.virtualbox.org/pipermail/vbox-dev/attachments/20121202/beb2ae9d/attachment.html>