On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, April White wrote: > I've gleaned this list of OS from the source: > > BSD > DARWIN > DOS > HPUX > LINUX
i guess if one is to be really pedantic, for bsd, darwin and linux it's more like "oses based on the bsd/darwin/linux kernel". not that there would be too many viable operating system using the darwin kernel, but still. > OS2 > OS2_GCC > SUNOS > UNIX > UNIX_COMPATIBLE `unix' and `unix compatible' are umbrella terms for anything not dos/os2/win*. if you are to spell bsd/linux/etc out separately, these two aren't, for any definition of `platform', separate platforms. > WIN > WIN_64 > WIN_CE > > The document files have sections called 'PLATFORMS' however I've seen the > term 'platform' used in reference to a compiler. > > My questions to the group are: > > - is the list of currently recognized OS > - is the term 'PLATFORM' synonymous with 'OS' no. generally, platform is rather synonymous with a given os on a given hardware architecture, but > - is the term 'PLATFORM' in reference to/relation to a compiler the wrong > term? in our case, you would want platform to be combination of an operating system and a compiler. again, depending on context, you might want to mix hw architecture in the picture (maybe in a passing mention). hb should be quite good in that if it runs on say linux/x64, it'll probably run on linux/sparc for example, but this is somewhat shaded by compilers not available for all architectures an os supports (icc and sunpro, for example). best is probably not to overcomplicate. unless the other-os people or przemek get a heart attack reading this ;) -- [-] mkdir /nonexistent _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
