Xenix 2.3 C-Compilers Chugg'en Along

[Fred Rump from home]

In article <7477 at megatest.UUCP> palowoda at megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes:
>
>
> Well I got some answers to some of my Xenix questions. Sort of.
[binary compile stuff deleted]
> And about the lib's
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: ucscc.UCSC.EDU!seanf at sun.UUCP (Sean Fagan)
>Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
>Status: OR
>
>
>>  Also is the lib files for Xenix386 created with the optimizer
>>  turned on?  In SCO UNIX?
>
>Yes.  All of the libraries have at least some optimization turned on, but
>not all of them have full optimization.  This is true in both SCO Xenix and
>SCO Unix.
>Sean.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Dr. T. Andrews <uunet!ki4pv!tanner at moldev.UUCP>
>The libraries are NOT built with ANY opptimization, which shows both
>little regard for the final program and for their optimizer.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ok so what give's are the lib's built with optimization or what.
> How can you tell anyways?
>
> One thing I do know is Dr. Andrews indicated that when he turned
> on loop optimization programs would crash. I ran into this too.

Programs with the loop optimizer on definitely do crash or behave erratically.
Dr T has been known to go into mental loops trying to convince SCO of the cost
of these problems on productivity and customer satisfaction.

The latest set of "proofs" accompanied by the usual set of demonstration 
programs has been acknowledged (finally) by SCO as being beyond their control 
as MS is the real culprit behind the compiler scenes.

Being that the problem can easily be demonstrated one wonders how Mr Sagan
(SCO) managed to optimize 'any' library routines per his statement. Perhaps if 
we were let in on the secret we could use the same trick.

There are other internal problems with the MS C compiler. Prototypes and other 
ANSI or even K&R standards seem to be in a state of confusion. One would think 
that mega-bucks Microsoft would have the resources and personnel to produce a 
compiler that is worthy of their size and power in the C development
community.

But perhaps the rumors are correct:  that everyone is working on OS/2 and PM.
Come hell or high water they're going to have those babies work on a 386 in
native mode yet.  So who cares about plain old C or UNIX? Why should they get 
so far ahead of basic bread and butter DOS/OS/2/3.
Fred Rump



-- 
This is my house.   My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 
26 Warren St.             uucp:          ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010       domain:  fred at cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr at cdin-1.uu.net
609-386-6846          "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..."  -  Schiller