Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 08:14:14 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: AndrewJ <luminous-is AT home DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Watcom vs djgpp
In-Reply-To: <4rse5.206152$7o1.5268864@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000723081106.29648C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, AndrewJ wrote:

> > Anyway, that's not the problem I had in mind.  Watcom has special
> > pragmas frequently used with inline assembly, which will need to be
> > converted to GCC equivalents.  This is not easy.
> 
> The pragma's should be no more difficult to convert than normal _asm {} blocks.
> There are a few tricky things to take into consideration, such as the ability
> to define what variables go into what registers, instead of having them passed
> in Watcom's normal order.  What specifically did you have in mind, Eli?

What I had in mind was the actual work of doing the conversion ;-).

Sure, it's not rocket science, but it does require a good understanding 
of GCC's inline assembly facilities.  If the original source has gobs of 
inline code, that might put a drag on porting it.

To recap: the original question was how hard would it be to port the 
program to DJGPP.  What I replied was that one of the factors is how much 
does the original source use inline assembly.