Well Bob .. I can tell this is going to be a long night...

    \ /
    (?)   Puppy contemplating darkness.
    {at} {at}

 BJ> Also, I'm now trying to get the GCC 3.2.1 package fixed 
 BJ> up and running here....  I noticed the install script 
 BJ> didn't give me the environment setup the way I need it....

 BJ> I have fun, cause I have EMX loaded on my boot partion (normally C:), 
 BJ> and I do *not* want the compiler on that partition due 
 BJ> to space issues (although it would probably work 
 BJ> out....

That's sort of my same wishumz.

 BJ> Yes, I need to re-install the GCC 3.2.1 because I was
 BJ> "testing" and need to place it else where....

OH! You got there the same sort of way I did with DJGPP!  My assigned home
for C/C++ work was planned to be drive E:  Watcomm and VAC++ were both
stuck there.  I originally did not want the C/C++ dev work on C:, but got
sentenced to that with the DJGPP or whatever 'test' install.

Tell you what,  I wanna do the same thing you wanna do.  When you figure
out what has to be modified in the 'install script' would you be so kind as
to post it here?

 BJ> When you figure it out, let me know....  Then maybe I 
 BJ> can try to get the Maximus / Squish / SqaFix ports 
 BJ> that we're (attempting to) compiling using GCC on 
 BJ> Linux to see if I can get that version to also compile 
 BJ> (and run) under OS/2 using GCC 3.2.1....  That would 
 BJ> be nice....  But it could get interesting....

     {at} {at}
     (~)   So I am guinness puppy?
     / \
      . .  < -- eyes rolling out here..

Well there may be real reason to go after this.  Hold thought a moment.

 BJ> We're close to being able to compile SqaFix under Linux....
 BJ> Still working out code clean up so that SqaFix can be
 BJ> GPL'ed.  Able to run test compiles of that code using 
 BJ> GCC under OS/2 would be nice....

Here is my thought and questions.

IBM has given up, per what I read in the MOZ forums, on the VAC++ compiler.
They are now actively moving to GCC for version 1.5.  Am I correct in my
thinking that the latest version 2.0.1 of IBM WEB BROWSER was still
compiled, though, with VAC++?   And, per the comments in the MOZ forums,
there is a good bit of instability, if we can talk that way, about the new
work now having been done on Version 1.4 ... and on into 1.5 as MOZ, right?

So are we saying, in a pointed sort of way, that, perhaps, one of the real
reasons that IBM has been investing so much time in MOZ and so on, is to
define its way out of the compiler business with GCC?

                   Which GCC?     This GCC?

More to the point at which I really want to think about!  As you probably
know this whole issue of OS/2 as we turned the corner toward MCP1/MCP2 with
the convergence of all the planets ... was handled with a 'new' compiler. 
A substantial amount of TestCase work, which is gleanable from the changes
in the TestCase kernel revisions .. has to do, I think, from this compiler
shift. It is certainly well known in the Fix Pack comments drifting about.

                Which compiler?   This compiler?


I personally hold that the only way any operating system ever becomes or
stays 'in status', if you will, is via the level of usefulness of one or
more COMPILER(s) which can be used with it.

You bet I'm interested in the MAX project to port to Linux with GCC!  This
is like the dying man who asked for a Priest, a Rabbi, and a Minister! 
With all due appologies to the real Nurse Ratchett, grin, when the nurse
asked, "Why?" He answered, "Well, I'm just hedging my
bets!"

Now should I remove DJGPP and install this one?  Is that a good bet? 
Should I put 'im on Drive E:?  With your help, of course, no?

If so, I go in and try surgery on C:, I guess..


    \
    ({at})>                  Puppy contemplating LARGE hole in drive C:.
    ~ ~    |            |


Is this the right compiler for the future of all OS/2?


--> Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)

Mike {at} 1:117/3001

--- Maximus/2 3.01