🚀 go-pugleaf

This is really an OS/2 programming issue.  Followups have been
redirected to comp.os.os2.programmer.  Apologies to the c.o.os2.misc and
gnu.gcc.help people who have to suffer through one more post on the topic.

In <1993Mar4.221055.5945@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>In article <1993Mar4.044754.17560@math.ucla.edu> nzhong@oak.math.ucla.edu (Ning Zhong) writes:
>>  I downloaded the GCC v.2.2.2 from ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (directory /pub/os2/2.0/
>>programming/gcc2-2.2.2) and installed in my D: drive like this:

I *highly* recommend checking out the EMX compiler.  It's a port of gcc
2.3.3, and it has *far* more functionality!

[problem description elided]

>>I did try "gcc -c sample1.c" and then "link386 sample1.obj" though, and it 
>>worked. I just want to know whether this can be done in a single command, 
>>and using the GCC linker, if there is one. And a final question, what "-l"
>>option should I use to compile a C++ program?

It can be done in a single command with EMX.

gcc -c sample1.c -o sample.exe

Will build the executable.  You can also generate an .o file to link
with the included ld, or you can generate an .obj to link with LINK386.

EMX also comes with DLLs to provide many standard UNIX system calls
(including fork()!).  And it supports all the PM & VIO/KBD/MOU calls. 
Also, it has a standard library DLL, which you can link with to get much
smaller executables in most cases.

>C++ code will require a collect step.  Use collect.exe to do this.  I
>don't know exactly how, though.  I have not written any C++ code with
>GCC.

To the best of my knowledge, the EMX version of gcc does not require
collect.  I also haven't written any c++ code with EMX, but I think that
the following would work:

gcc -c samplepp.cc -o samplepp.exe

You might have to add -lgpp, I really don't know about that.  In any
case, EMX is more up-to-date, more powerful, more flexible, easier to
use, has more options, can be used to create 32-bit DOS applications as
well as OS/2 applications (it has a DOS extender included), and is an
all-around better system in my book.

It's unfortunate that the people who did the OS/2 gcc 2.2.2 decided to
name their system gcc, IMO, as people looking for a good C compiler may
well grab this, and never realize that EMX exists and is a better gcc to
boot. :-(
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Without gratuitous sex, we would be no
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |  better than animals."  --M. Swanwick