Euphoria
Ticket #791:
The 4.1 branch still has a setup file for the OpenWatcom bundled installer.
-
Reported by
jimcbrown
Sep 27, 2012
The 4.1 branch, aka the default branch, still has a setup file that generated the bundled OpenWatcom installer.
This should either be removed, or replaced with a MinGW-bundled installer. (We might need 4 total: 32bit installer, 64bit installer, 32bit+MinGW32, 64bit+Mingw64).
Details
1. Comment by ne1uno
Sep 27, 2012
Jeremy started a branch to remove watcom. that would be a better way to go, all at once, than removing various things with individual tickets.
reminding, watcom still works for 32 bits, the bulk of users for the forseeable future and no real decision has been made to formally remove watcom ie: posting to the forum for comment etc.
2. Comment by jimcbrown
Sep 27, 2012
I was under the impression that the current default branch no longer builds with Watcom. Has anyone tried this lately?
3. Comment by ne1uno
Sep 27, 2012
I should add, I see no real value in keeping watcom. the 4.1 makefile and config is already broken and lacks someone who is willing to keep it maintained.
preferring gcc myself for many years, I only installed watcom to build euphoria before minGW worked. there have been some speed tests and compile time tests, someone may wish to repeat to convince themselves that current gcc works well enough.
this may as well be the lets remove watcom ticket.
4. Comment by jimcbrown
Sep 27, 2012
We did pose the question a year ago, and got mostly postive responses.
http://openeuphoria.org/forum/116436.wc
5. Comment by SDPringle
Sep 29, 2012
Even though we may not be able to build the core stuff with the current state of the Makefile, there is no reason to remove the ability of the users to use this smaller compiler (and backward compatible with older OSes). Let's keep the old computers in use and away from land fills. Leave Watcom C support in the translator. However, there is no reason I see for including any compiler with EUPHORIA in a single package. One can install both separately.
6. Comment by ne1uno
Sep 30, 2012
isn't minGW the smaller compiler?
do all the translating and binding tests pass with minGW built tools using openWatcom compiler? that batch or makefile is not written yet. those tests should be done before a release.
I wonder how many are even translating using minGW and the release version of the lib.a, the supplied libs are only usually compatible with the same version of compiler, this have been true for the last few major and minor releases for me.
so for minGW it does make sense to include the compiler. the 64 bit compiler can build both 32 and 64 bits so that might be the one to include in the installer.
7. Comment by jimcbrown
Sep 30, 2012
As ne1uno points out, it's not possible to use the translator without the runtime library. If that no longer builds under OpenWatcom, then what's the point of keeping it?
8. Comment by SDPringle
Sep 30, 2012
Do eu.lib and eudbg.lib build anymore?
9. Comment by ne1uno
Sep 30, 2012
BTW, I do think the ability to still translate with openwatcom will be an advantage for those wanting to migrate to 4.1 with minimal pain. so if that doesn't present too much trouble in merging the current features and bug fixes it's probably a good idea to keep *for now* overall I'de give it a 3 out of 10 though.
10. Comment by SDPringle
Oct 20, 2012
There is no logical reason you wouldn't release 4.1 because you have an OPTION of building an installer that includes a copy of Watcom C.
11. Comment by jimcbrown
Oct 21, 2012
When I wrote this ticket, the OpenWatcom build was broken, and releasing with a installer when support for that compiler was broken was a no-no, hence we either had to fix it or strip it out. But the ticket was blocking until either was done.
I guess that technically, you fixed it, so this ticket no longer represents a bug. I'll call it a feature request (though it's actually a de-feature request) now, to be implemented if the poll results are to drop, or to be marked invalid if the poll results are to keep.
http://openeuphoria.org/forum/119313.wc#119313