Comments on: Building OS/2 apps from QuickC for Windows https://virtuallyfun.com/2023/10/23/building-os-2-apps-from-quickc-for-windows/ Fun with Virtualization Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:37:56 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1 By: neozeed https://virtuallyfun.com/2023/10/23/building-os-2-apps-from-quickc-for-windows/comment-page-1/#comment-341716 Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:37:56 +0000 https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=13382#comment-341716 In reply to Malcolm.

Looking back at the screenshot, I think it linked, it’s the resource compiler being called for no apparent reason that is bombing out. I should look at the makefile again, but that means getting out of the electric blanket…

]]> By: Malcolm https://virtuallyfun.com/2023/10/23/building-os-2-apps-from-quickc-for-windows/comment-page-1/#comment-341708 Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:34:52 +0000 https://virtuallyfun.com/?p=13382#comment-341708 Somewhat related, but for QuickC 2.0 for DOS:

https://jeffpar.github.io/kbarchive/kb/040/Q40503/

I think I figured this out the hard way back in the day, since we didn’t have Internet connections when it was written. Note that this article is from 1989 so references to “Windows” should be read as “Windows 2.x”.

There’s also this which is for QuickC 2.5:

https://jeffpar.github.io/kbarchive/kb/065/Q65490/

I’ve never seen the disk it refers to. Looking now link.exe was not included at all with QuickC 2.5, which seems like a big functional regression. I’m very skeptical of the implication that Link 5.02 in QuickC 2.0 can’t target Windows 3.0.

Googling for the disk turned up https://books.google.com/books?id=FDwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PP8&lpg=PP8#v=onepage&q&f=false which might be interesting. Note the “SMK” it refers to is what we’d call “WLO” today. Interesting that it’s explicitly one-third the cost of the Windows SDK.

AFAICT all of the 5.x linkers can generate either Windows or OS/2 binaries. Even if they couldn’t, OS/2 includes a version of link.exe and doscalls.lib, so all you need for OS/2 development is a 16 bit OMF compiler.

]]>