Xref: utzoo comp.compilers:1055 comp.os.msdos.programmer:117
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!spdcc!esegue!compilers-sender
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson -- YBH)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: MicroSoft C 6.0F
Summary: Results of my querry.
Keywords: C, reviews
Message-ID: <1990Jul16.215329.751@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: 16 Jul 90 21:53:29 GMT
References: <2707@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1990Jul07.145343.9101@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <1990Jul14.222613.13835@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Sender: compilers-sender@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson -- YBH)
Followup-To: comp.compilers
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Mtn Vw CA 94035
Lines: 22
Approved: compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us

A while ago I posted a querry about Microsoft C 6.0.

For those of you interested, here are the results:

Bugs:
1) The compilers fails on certain large but legal macro expansions.
2) A certain optimization does not treat the stack pointer correctly,
which causes an eventual crash. (reported three times)
3) NULL has been redefined (not really a bug, but annoying)
4) No printed docs.

On the other hand 60% of the repondants reported not having problems,
and most agree that the optimizations are generally better, or at least
will be once the bugs are worked out.

Please note that this is second hand information for which I take no
reponsibility.

Mel
-- 
Send compilers articles to compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
{spdcc | ima | lotus| world}!esegue.  Meta-mail to compilers-request@esegue.