DOS ain't dead

AWK 20230909 for DOS

Requires 8086 CPU or better.

https://archive.org/details/nawk-20230909-for-dos

gopher://tilde.pink/1/~bencollver/files/dos/devel/awk/

> AWK 20230909 for DOS
>
> Requires 8086 CPU or better.

A few years ago, I rebuilt MAWK 1.2.2 with Turbo C++ because it was smaller than the default (1996) DOS+OS/2 family .EXE and could compress with UPX. So only 60 kb UPX'd. It leaves a fair bit of conventional memory too.

The previous DOS build of "one true" AWK for us was via OpenWatcom by Gunther Knauf, IIRC, way back in 2010. It works okay (and large model, apparently) but doesn't quite have as much free RAM as MAWK.

GAWK for DJGPP isn't actively maintained or supported anymore, but a port of 5.0 is from 2019.

* http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/unix/awk/

I only use "classic" OpenWatcom 1.9 since newer 2.0-pre hasn't been finalized (or perfectly tested, dunno). But FYI you can use "-za99" to allow some C99 features, e.g. "int blah = func();" (that you apparently worked around in a few places).

I probably had some other minor comments but can't remember. I'll take another look later.

> The previous DOS build of "one true" AWK for us was via OpenWatcom by
> Gunther Knauf, IIRC, way back in 2010. It works okay (and large model,
> apparently) but doesn't quite have as much free RAM as MAWK.

<snip>

> I only use "classic" OpenWatcom 1.9 since newer 2.0-pre hasn't been
> finalized (or perfectly tested, dunno). But FYI you can use "-za99" to
> allow some C99 features, e.g. "int blah = func();" (that you apparently
> worked around in a few places).

I don't seem to have had issues rolling bwk awk with OpenWatcom 1.9, from experience, but it's been a couple years and I don't really have a way to test it for brokenness.