Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:142 comp.unix.xenix:7297
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!bionet!apple!claris!sts!cohesive!megatest!palowoda
From: palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: UNIX/XENIX binaries on XENIX/UNIX systems
Message-ID: <7326@megatest.UUCP>
Date: 25 Aug 89 08:31:51 GMT
References: <610@uci.UUCP>
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 33

From article <610@uci.UUCP>, by clay@uci.UUCP (News Administrator):
> In article <7227@megatest.UUCP>, palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes:
>> 
> 
> 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?  I'm running uport's
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
			    I'm sorry your right.

> Text Processing system under XENIX 386 2.3.1 now with no performance hits,
> as well as binaries I compile up under Green Hills C.
> 
> with no noticeable performance hits.  Not sure about the 286 binaries, tho...
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
						      With programs
						      like 'compress it's
						      really noticeable.

> 
> What we HAVE decided is that this binary compatibility stuff is a GREAT idea.

  I agree with that. It saved me from alot of downtime. Speaking of
  compiliers. What's the C-compilier like under 2.3 Xenix? Or should
  I say do you run into any problems like the one under 2.2 (286).

  ---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