Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Bugs in Microsoft compilers (was: Re: MS C 6.00a bug list)
Message-ID: <11139@uwm.edu>
Date: 18 Apr 91 16:26:09 GMT
References: <8439@umd5.umd.edu> <1991Apr18.070131.1892@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu> <1991Apr18.133035.15827@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 19

In article <1991Apr18.133035.15827@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>  I was personally very disappointed with the state of first release of
>6.00. It had lots of things that just didn't work, and several that did
>work but very slowly. For about 4 months I did a complete backtrack and
>started moving all my stuff over to Zortech (they send you their bug
>list for free). However, eventually 6.00a came out and most of my
>complaints were cleared up so I'm running with it right now...

I'm having somewhat similar problems now, after finding a problem in QC2.5's
incremental linker and object code generation process.  What makes it really
inaccessible is that they made their object code format proprietary which
entails a lengthy period of analysis/decoding/reverse-enginerring.  And of
course, no source is ever distributed.

Pretty much for that reason, I'm seriously considering switching over to GNU's
C compiler (ported to DOS), especially if it comes with source.

One thing that would have helped is if Microsoft had a place reachable by
e-mail to communicate with...