Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:6321 comp.unix.xenix:12248
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!pacbell!sactoh0!unify!rdk386!ron
From: ron@rdk386.uucp (Ron Kuris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix vs. UNIX
Message-ID: <1990Jun29..185@rdk386.uucp>
Date: 29 Jun 90 07:01:19 GMT
References: <3304@crash.cts.com> <4716@thebes.Thalatta.COM> <1990Jun27.232700.3046@virtech.uucp>
Reply-To: ron@rdk386.UUCP (Ron Kuris)
Organization: At Home, Sacramento, CA
Lines: 21

In article <1990Jun27.232700.3046@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>
>One of the big problems xenix has is in porting stuff from other UNIX systems
>to it.  The xenix compiler has alot of problems with large source files, 
>complicated #define macros, etc.  I am speaking from experience when I 
>tried to port an office automation package to Xenix 2.2.? and ran into 
>several brick walls, while the port to System V.3 (Bell Tech) of the same
>product just took around 4 days (it was 29MB of source).
>
>Going the other way should be much easier (which is obvious from your
>posting).
>
>SCO UNIX (with its inclusion of the standard AT&T compiler) should alleviate
>many of these problems.

Why not just use gcc and not worry about the abnormalities of the "standard"
compiler provided with Xenix?  I agree its broken, but the compiler doesn't
make the entire system unusable, especially when there are alternatives...
-- 
...!pyramid!unify!rdk386!ron -or- ...!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!siva!rdk386!ron
It's not how many mistakes you make, its how quickly you recover from them.