SCO MicroSoft C Compiler comments

[Bob Palowoda]

>From article <196 at crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, by davidsen at crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr):
> 
>   Before I bought Xenix for my home machine I got copies of Xenix/386,
> ix/386 and MicroPort. The Xenix compiler was best in overall speed and
> did not have any internal failures. Both MP and ix had some cases in
> which the C compiler would generate code which the assembler couldn't
> handle, using registers not in the 386 (R10 and R11 are PDP-11).
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Well this is something I could live with *when* I run into it. I must
 have compilied 20meg of misc c code and still haven't seen this.
 I'm useing the ESIX C compiler.       

  
> 
>   Trying later versions I find that the MSC compiler still produces
> better code by a small margin, although not all you might be led to
> believe from the ads ;-) 

  I agree that there optimizer is better. But when I turn on the 
  loop-optimizer in Xenix MSC it produces "space-kadet loops".
  Runtime problems really bother me like this because no matter
  how well you QA your software there is a good chance this gets
  through the pipe. This *I* can accept, but when my customers
  run into it gets really messy.

  I would be interested to know what 386 Utilities on Xenix are 
  still compilied with the 286 compiler. Can someone do a 
  file * on the /bin and /usr/bin directories and pipe me the 
  output.

  Also is the lib files for Xenix386 created with the optimizer 
  turned on?  In SCO UNIX?             


   ---Bob

-- 
 Bob Palowoda    *Home of Fiver BBS*                   login: bbs               
 Work: {sun,decwrl,pyramid}!megatest!palowoda                           
 Home: {sun}ys2!fiver!palowoda   (A XBBS System)       2-lines   
 BBS:  (415)623-8809 2400/1200 (415)623-8806 1200/2400/9600/19200