Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!DRF@SU-SCORE.ARPA
From: DRF@SU-SCORE.ARPA (David Fuchs)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Any C compilers that produce assembly language?
Message-ID: <1645@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 15:28:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1645
Posted: Sun Sep 22 15:28:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 09:31:55 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 23


"Does anyone know which MS-DOS C compilers are capable of outputting Micro-
 soft assembly language?"

Don't be fooled into thinking that Microsoft C will do it!  Even though
there is an option that claims to fill the bill ("/Fa"), it is so buggy
that it's totally useless.  I tried it on one of my programs, and found
I had to fix half a dozen systematic bugs in the output code before the
Microsoft assembler would accept it (for instance: multiply-defined labels,
missing new-lines in segment definitions, "DB (2)" instead of "DW" in many
cases, etc.).  Obviously, no one at Microsoft had ever bothered to test
the thing.  I called their support number, and all I could get was "Yes,
it doesn't work."  Nothing about IF it would be fixed, much less WHEN.

	-david

p.s. I'm extra-angry because their first response was "Well, if you're
using the IBM assembler (even the new one), you're out of luck because
it's out of date; you have to use the Microsoft assembler."  Cute trick:
sell a buggy program, and then tell users that if they buy a second
product, everything will be OK.  Pretty sleazy, especially since it
isn't even true!
-------


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com