Re: Win32 Native API

From: David Bouchain (david_at_bouchain.de)
Date: 01/07/04

  • Next message: Terje Mathisen: "Re: Greetings to Mr. Randall Hyde" 
    Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:32:29 +0000 (UTC)

    hutch-- wrote:

    > David,
    >
    > There is no point in circumventing the documented method of accessing
    > the normal system functions in any of the versions of Windows. One of
    > the few things that has remained vaguely constant since the
    > introduction of 32 bit Windows is the documentation for the API set of
    > functions.

    Ok. So I guess I shouldn't have any trouble running my code on previous
    versions of Windows (I'm on XP Pro) if I stick to the things that are
    available in the other versions, Windows 9x for example. Right?

    >
    > If you were working exclsively on one version of Windows and you
    > either wrote your own device drivers or found some fudge to get into
    > ring0, you could probably do what you had in mind but particularly
    > when you have a compiler in mind, restricting yourself in this way
    > would not make sense.

    Yes. I don't want to write device drivers, but rather software using as
    few libraries as I can, as low-leveled as it gets in Windows. But I
    figure it's the best to stick to the Win32 API then.

    >
    > If the compiler design you have in mind is a core compiler with
    > libraries for runtime code, you use the API functions to provide the
    > operating system access you require which allows you to independently
    > change the libraries for other version of the OS. This also gives you
    > some chance of porting the compiler to other operating systems.

    That is exactly what I had in mind. I started writing a little C
    compiler now ("little" in terms of "a few features of the C language" --
    I don't think I could finish a C compiler in my lifetime... ;) ). And
    the standard library that comes with it.

    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > hutch at movsd dot com
    >

    --Dave

  • Next message: Terje Mathisen: "Re: Greetings to Mr. Randall Hyde"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: DFPORT
      ... I work on a Windows XP platform. ... We normally use F77 Fortran and for this one problematic program we ... Since we also have the Intel Fortran compiler, we also had a lot of ... Windows Fortran comper (with appropriate libraries). ...
      (comp.lang.fortran)
    • Re: hmm..interesting
      ... you've got a discussion of ARM vs Intel architecture here: ... And ARM is rapidly running away from RISC. ... mainstream (many netbooks and smartphones run Linux instead of Windows ... And hardly any C compiler does. ...
      (comp.sys.acorn.hardware)
    • Re: Stalin ported to Windows.
      ... Therefore, the compiler ... Stalin from Scheme sources; it took six hours to generate the C ...   Junia and Reane  got a working Windows port from the C ...
      (comp.lang.scheme)
    • Re: hmm..interesting
      ... work out at more power per Watt than x86. ... mainstream (many netbooks and smartphones run Linux instead of Windows ... the fact that Visual Studio allows you to get away with fairly sloppy ... difficult to find a C compiler that *doesn't* have vendor-specific ...
      (comp.sys.acorn.hardware)
    • Re: C++ programming migration from DOS to Windows
      ... compiler, so the current compiler is quite competitive WRT to ... There are a couple of ports of gcc to Windows. ... Comeau is more or less unique: the best language conformance you can ... IDEs: Microsoft and Borland have both produced decent IDEs in the past, ...
      (comp.lang.cpp)