Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:38711 comp.windows.ms.programmer:2092 comp.os.msdos.programmer:4891
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ukma!rex!samsung!uunet!brunix!porter!demillo
From: demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu (Rob DeMillo)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: MS C 6.00a bug list
Message-ID: <73507@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 25 Apr 91 17:15:20 GMT
References: <8439@umd5.umd.edu> <1991Apr18.070131.1892@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu> <1991Apr18.133035.15827@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@brunix.UUCP
Distribution: usa
Organization: Brown University - Planetary Geology Group
Lines: 20

In article <1991Apr18.133035.15827@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>
>  I have to agree that MSC5.1 is/was about twice as stable as C6.00;
>6.00a seems to be more on an equal footing with 5.1 as far as
>reliability goes. 6.00a IS slower than 5.1 and the output code isn't
>that much better, but I'm sticking with 6.00a because of the inline
>assembler. Also, if I'm ever rash enough to take on any OS/2 projects
>6.00a supports OS/2 better than 5.1 did.
>

I have to agree with the opinions experessed here. 
My partner and I have stuck to MSC 5.1 for that very reason. 

Speaking of which, when is the next release of MSC coming out?


 - Rob DeMillo			     | Internet: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu
   Mass Inst of Tech/Lincoln Lab     | Also:     demillo@porter.geo.brown.edu
   Weather Sensing Project-Group 43  | Reality:  401-273-0804 (home)
"I say you *are* the Messiah, Lord! And I ought to know, I've followed a few!"