16
Hardware / Re: OpenWatcom Discussion
« on: February 01, 2024, 11:19:34 am »Watcom 1.9 is what supposedly everybody should use, so I called that "official". But for a seldomly used feature ("based pointers") it produces an incorrect binary (for code executing in Ring 0 -> device drivers) where Watcom 2.0 will work properly. But Watcom 2.0 is "Jiri's fork" where you never know what he will do next.Is this bug new to 1.9 or 1.8 or ...
Is there a possibility at all to report a bug against Watcom 1.9 ?
There's still alive the #watcom chat group and Michal is hanging around there. I don't think the perforce server will ever get started again. There's also Stevens OW copy at github - https://github.com/StevenLevine/openwatcom-v1. But it seems he don't allow issues there. Maybe we should email Frank? But I fear he lost interest on OW since a while.
Edit - Michal says this https://github.com/iainnicol/open-watcom-1.x/tree/openwatcom 'should be a very accurate conversion of the P4 depot to git, but it's not meant as a working copy:'. Looking a bit in the commits it seems to me Stevens repository is much ahead of that. Although Michal says he will accept fixes I think an email to Steven would be the best chance to get something fixed in the near future.
Basically it's the same problem as always - if different people put different repositories online no one knows what's the best one to use. If there's no clear lead for a project it's useless in the long run even if there exist different source repos. Currently I don't know what I should think about the next fork of Martin here - https://github.com/OS2World/DEV-TOOLS-IDE-openwatcom-v1. Of course I circumvent Jiris sites including his sourceforge.net one.