Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!bschwart From: bschwart@elbereth.rutgers.edu (some great stormfowl, whenever he has walked his while) Newsgroups: gnu.gcc Subject: Re: more 8086 ideas Message-ID: Date: 3 Dec 89 00:31:17 GMT References: <8911301314.AA17358@wubios.WUstl.EDU> Reply-To: bschwart@elbereth.rutgers.edu (some great stormfowl, whenever he has walked his while) Distribution: gnu Organization: The Society for Anachronistic Poetry Lines: 24 In article <8911301314.AA17358@wubios.WUstl.EDU> david@WUBIOS.WUSTL.EDU (David J. Camp) writes: >I do think >it would be very desirable to have gcc able to generate code for MS-Dos, >because that would immediately allow many Unix utilities to be ported to >messy dos. I would like to see a gcc port to Misery DOS simply because I enjoy using gcc. At the very least a port to 286 Xenix. (Nope, I don't have Xenix, but if someone wants to donate the cash for me to get it then I will not hesitate. I _do_ have a 286, so that's no problem.) I'd like to mention, however, that Microsoft C 5.1 and QuickC do a good job of compiling UN*X stuff with minimal change, in my experience. I have had less luck with Turbo C or Zortech C. (Here's a warning, though: if you buy QuickC 2.0, when you open the package you will find a note asking you for another $25 to get printed manuals. As distributed, QuickC 2.0 comes with a couple of skimpy books and an online hypertext manual. Deception and trickery. More reason to prefer gcc.) -- Barry Schwartz, Chief SAPsucker bbs@cdspr.rutgers.edu Grad Student, Dept. of Elec. and Comp. Engg. bschwart@elbereth.rutgers.edu Rutgers University College of Engg. bbs@hankel.rutgers.edu Piscataway, NJ 08854 U.S.A. rutgers!cdspr!bbs Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com