SCO MicroSoft C Compiler comments

[John Plocher]

>>   If it going to be compiled with MSC that it's got to go through
>>   the 286/386 emulator
>
>I knew that (on uport, at least) an emlulator was used to run 286 binaries
>of any type.  But is an emulator used for 386 code?

Looking at the new SCO 3.2 system I'd be cautious:

They provide Microsoft C as their default compiler, but they also give you 
a version of pcc.  When the two are benchmarked, MSC comes out looking faster!

OK, says I, this does not jive with what I've seen of the MSC compiler - I mean,
pcc is slow, but not *THAT* slow :-)

Some sluthing later, it turns out that the version of pcc that SCO provides
with their 3.2 system is considerably slower than that provided by AT&T's 3.2!

I don't know if SCO deliberately crippled their version of pcc in order to
make MSC look better, or if AT&T is shipping a different version, but the numbers 
I get from Microport's CC are in the same range as the ATT 3.2 CC, and both are
better than SCO's pcc :-)

Since it seems that the SCO version of MSC produces 286 code with 32 bit addresses,
I can see where Bob P made his comment about an emulator, but the code is really
running in the 386 world.  If you use the 286 flag you can generate 286 
executables which DO run under the 286 emulator, but that is not the default.

Just to be fair, the SCO MSC compiler is the only one that I know of that can
be told to produce DOS, 286 Unix, 386 Unix, 286 Xenix, 386 Xenix, and OS/2
executables - they even include the OS/2 libraries!  Plus, they provide
CodeView under Unix!  It only works with the x.out files generated by MSC,
so it has some limitations, but it is MUCH better than sdb!

    -John Plocher