Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!tcnet!nis!dicome!uci!clay
From: clay@uci.UUCP (News Administrator)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: PLM vs. C for 80286/80386
Summary: New iNTEL C for *86
Keywords: PLM C
Message-ID: <95@uci.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jul 89 18:12:08 GMT
References: <598@philtis.UUCP> <14381@bfmny0.UUCP> <1765@auspex.auspex.com> <2760@maccs.McMaster.CA>
Organization: Unified Communications Inc., Minneapolis
Lines: 28


I have actually used the latest (as of Fall, '88) version of Intel C with
a specific eye towards reasonable code and PL/M compatibility.  I was pleased
to see both.  This is version 3.x (maybe 4.x, I can't remember).  This was NOT
the original hack job that was too awful for words.

With regards to PL/M compatibility, there is no way to say "SELECTOR" in C such
that LINK86 will not complain of type mismatches with PL/M modules, but the
code works fine.

Generated code looks very much like that of PL/M, the default parameter-passing
mechanism is "fixed param" which is like MSC "pascal".  Interrupt procedures
work just like PL/M.  Now don't send flames to me if you don't like PL/M's code
I'm just saying it looks similar if not identical!

The debugger that I Beta -tested looks like Intel licenced it from the same
place Microsquishy got Codeview.  Seemed to work OK for simple things --
I didn't have a lot of time to work with it, as I was doing an embedded
system, not DOS.

This work was done when employed by Intercim Corp. in Burnsville, MN.  I will
forward email to them, as they are not quit on the net yet.

-- 
Clayton Haapala                ...!mmm!dicome!uci!clay
Unified Communications Inc.    "Declare your Point of Entry, Space Wanderer!"
3001 Metro Drive - Suite 500   "Canarsi -- where everyone looks the same."
Bloomington, MN  55425          	-- zappa