2 ms·

From a quote in the article > One of my goals for FastDoom is to switch the compiler from OpenWatcom v2 to DJGPP (GCC), which has been shown to produce faster

From a quote in the article > One of my goals for FastDoom is to switch the compiler from OpenWatcom v2 to DJGPP (GCC), which has been shown to produce faster code with the same source. Alternatively, it would be great if someone could improve OpenWatcom v2 to close the performance gap. > - Conversation with Viti95 Out of curiosity, how hard is it to port from OpenWatcom to GCC? Clearly the solution here is to write a Watcom llvm front end…

fabiensanglard 2y ago
> how hard is it to port from OpenWatcom to GCC? I don't think it is that hard but likely very time consuming. In theory it should only be about writing a new build script (not based on `wmake` but on a real `make`). And then workout the tiny flag/preprocessor/C compiler discrepancies.
- turol 2y ago
  > In theory it should only be about writing a new build script (not based on `wmake` but on a real `make`). And then workout the tiny flag/preprocessor/C compiler discrepancies. For mostly C code like the original Doom source, yes. But it looks like FastDoom people have added quite a bit of assembly. That needs to be ported to AT&T syntax. Or you need to find out if Intel syntax works in your version of DJGPP's gas. While this should work nowadays I have not tried it. Then there's other differences like Watcom mapping low memory by default into the low part of the address space but DJGPP needing explicit mapping or access.