MS C 6.00a bug list

[nathan engle]

In article <1991Apr18.070131.1892 at unicorn.cc.wwu.edu> n8541751 at unicorn.cc.wwu.edu (Where there is darkness, light) writes:
>bchin at umd5.umd.edu (Bill Chin) writes:
>
>>Anyone seen/have such a beast?  I've heard lots of rumors
>>about broken optimization and warning levels creating
>>bad code.  Specifically, will using -W3 or -Oas create
>>bad code for DOS or Windows programming??
>>Thanks.
>
>I don't have a bug list, but we're switching back to version 5.1 at work
>because of bad problems with warning levels and slower compiles without
>a noticeable gain in execution speed.

  I was personally very disappointed with the state of first release of
6.00. It had lots of things that just didn't work, and several that did
work but very slowly. For about 4 months I did a complete backtrack and
started moving all my stuff over to Zortech (they send you their bug
list for free). However, eventually 6.00a came out and most of my
complaints were cleared up so I'm running with it right now.

  I have to agree that MSC5.1 is/was about twice as stable as C6.00;
6.00a seems to be more on an equal footing with 5.1 as far as
reliability goes. 6.00a IS slower than 5.1 and the output code isn't
that much better, but I'm sticking with 6.00a because of the inline
assembler. Also, if I'm ever rash enough to take on any OS/2 projects
6.00a supports OS/2 better than 5.1 did.

--
Nathan Engle             Software Evangelist
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle at copper.ucs.indiana.edu