Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:181 comp.unix.xenix:7326 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: SCO MicroSoft C Compiler comments Message-ID: <196@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Date: 27 Aug 89 22:12:14 GMT References: <7227@megatest.UUCP> <610@uci.UUCP> <123591@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Followup-To: comp.unix.i386 Organization: GE Corp R&D Center Lines: 19 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). 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 have been led to believe by some ix/386 ads and hype at shows that they have enhanced the compiler and that what they ship is a good bit better than the original port. If this is true, then SCO may be shipping the original port. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon