Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!apple!netcom!dsmythe
From: dsmythe@netcom.UUCP (Dave Smythe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SCO 3.2.2 Dev Sys users: did YOU volunteer?
Message-ID: <20120@netcom.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jan 91 20:51:10 GMT
References: <278377C7.4348@tct.uucp> <39@teqsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 34

In article <39@teqsoft.UUCP> jmc@teqsoft.UUCP (Jack Cloninger) writes:
>jtt@tct.uucp (John Tombs) writes:
>
>>The output from cc -Fs file.c is a nicely paginated source listing (file.S).
>My version is labelled 3.2.2a and prints "C Optimizing Compiler Version
>5.10.010 (Beta).  We didn't volunteer to be a beta test site either!  It's
>probably just a module that was overlooked, but it does make you wonder
>about their source code version control, doesn't it?
>
>Jack


Considering the number of bugs we've found, I think that it *is* still beta.
It is more likely than not that syntax errors in the compiler produce
segmentation violations, in my experience.  Sometimes you don't even get
the benefit of an error message telling you what source line caused the
problem!  I *hate* whittling my source (plus a million includes) down using
#if 0 just to find a silly typo...

We *are* using ODT 1.0 with some interim fixes sent by SCO, so maybe we
just are suffering from old bugs.  I don't trust that damn Microsoft
compiler, though.  Even *without* -O...  I just tell people to run the code
through gcc if Microsoft can't tell them where the errors are.

Just my $.02.  

Just as an aside, does anyone else seem to encounter more problems with
software companies that are 'getting into UNIX' from the DOS side than
with brand-new UNIX software companies?  Or are the problems just different?
Perhaps I am more critical of them having come from there...  Or perhaps
I am sensitive because the enlightened management (:-() at the company
I work for are making the step up (!) from SunOS to SCO... blech.

D