Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:7397 comp.unix.i386:242 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!sun-barr!decwrl!megatest!palowoda From: palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386 Subject: Xenix 2.3 C-Compilers Chugg'en Along Message-ID: <7477@megatest.UUCP> Date: 31 Aug 89 10:16:17 GMT Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca Lines: 131 Well I got some answers to some of my Xenix questions. Sort of. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From: purdue!haven.umd.edu!ames!rogerk@decwrl.UUCP (Roger Knopf 5502) Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. [some stuff deleted] [a quote from Mr, Knopf] Not all the utilities were recompiled as 386 because most were small model and would actually run faster as a small model 8086 binary with 16 bit ints and pointers. Any utility which would benefit from being compiled 386 has been. Roger Knopf The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------ | | V ------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ucscc.UCSC.EDU!seanf@sun.UUCP (Sean Fagan) Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Status: OR In article <7396@megatest.UUCP> you write: > 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. Well, if you have a Xenix 2.3 system, all of the binaries on the N floppies (I think) are '386. The others are '286. -------------------------------------------------------------------- | V -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim@bahamut.fsc.com (James O'Connor) Subject: Re: SCO MicroSoft C Compiler comments [Thank you Mr. O'Connor for the list] Too damn many!!! I know it would not take much for SCO to re-compile everything, but they seem reluctant to. They do say, however, that SCO Unix is completely compiled in 386 mode. Here's the list from this machine: --------------------------------------------------------------------- I won't publish the list but to some it up there where: 59 --- 80386 Executables (Some of these where not even from SCO) 5 --- 80286 Executables 179 -- 8086 Executables I agree with Mr Knopf to a point. I'm still interested why these following programs are 286 (or 8086)executables and *NOT* 386. THIS IS ON A 2.3 OS. SCO? /bin/as: 80286 separate executable, Middle model /bin/asm: 80286 separate executable, Middle model /bin/asx: 8086 separate executable /bin/cc: 8086 separate executable /bin/cc286: 8086 separate executable /bin/nm: 8086 separate executable /usr/bin/lex: 8086 separate executable And about the lib's ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ucscc.UCSC.EDU!seanf@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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | V ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dr. T. Andrews [some stuff deleted] [a quote from Mr Andrews] 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 optimaztion programs would crash. I ran into this too. ---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