Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy
From: coy@ssc-vax (Stephen B Coy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Intel 386 C
Message-ID: <4097@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jun 91 22:53:23 GMT
References: <1234@ocsmd.com>
Sender: news@ssc-vax.UUCP
Reply-To: coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy)
Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics
Lines: 31

In article <1234@ocsmd.com> glenn@zeus.ocs.com (Glenn Ford) writes:
>
>Has anyone used INTEL386 C?  It is supposed to make 386 executables
>that don't need a DOS extender!  It apparently wraps its own
>DOS extender into the executable!  Sounds too good to be true?!
>Let me know of any evaluations people have if they have tried
>doing this..thanks..

Yes, it comes with a DOS extender that is automatiacally bound with
your application upon linking.  The DOS extender will recognize up
to 16Mb of extended RAM and can be set up to use up to 4Gb of disk
space for virtual memory.  Perhaps the nicest thing about the DOS
extender is that Intel requires NO royalties for distribution of
executables unlike Phar Lap and Ergo.  The DOS extender is DPMI
compliant which means that it runs just fine under a Windows DOS box
when you're in 386 enhanced mode.  Speed wise, the impression I've
gotten is that the Intel package compiles slightly slower than
Watcom 386 (but still reasonable) and executes about the same speed
depending on the code, of course.  Output to stdout seems slower for
some reason which I haven't looked into yet.  Price wise, compared
to Watcom 386 and a DOS extender and royalties you just can't beat
the price of the Intel package.

If anyone has any specific questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Followups moved to comp.os.msdos.programmer.

Stephen Coy
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP

discalimer:  I have no connection with Intel except for a $500 hole
in my Visa card.