Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!claris!sts!cohesive!megatest!palowoda From: palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: SCO MicroSoft C Compiler comments Message-ID: <7396@megatest.UUCP> Date: 29 Aug 89 08:03:05 GMT References: <196@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca Lines: 42 From article <196@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, by davidsen@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