Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!sandersr
From: sandersr@ecn-pc.UUCP (Robert C Sanders)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Survey of C Compilers
Message-ID: <606@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Aug-86 01:21:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.606
Posted: Fri Aug  1 01:21:45 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Aug-86 08:59:25 EDT
References: <7975@duke.duke.UUCP> <613@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: sandersr@ecn-pc.UUCP (Robert C Sanders)
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:9447 net.lang.c:10129

In article <613@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>I have used several C compilers in my projects and here are the summaries:
>
>1) Microsoft C
>2) Lattice C
>3) Mark Williams C
>4) QNX C compiler
>5) DeSmet C compiler
>6) Wizard C.
>
>So in the long run, Microsoft C is the winner.  We run it under Xenix which
>means that we don't even have to use dos except for testing.  Documentation
>of the DOS functions is very poor in the Xenix version, though.
>-- Brad Templeton

You forgot Computer Innovations C86; it too will run under Xenix (or at least
their Xenix version), and cross compile for Xenix or MS DOS.  As someone
posted recently, CII C86 produces slightly larger code than MS C, but it too
supports ANSI style argument parsing and medium model.  It too is very UNIX
oriented (it is developed on a UNIX machine); I have no problem porting
anything across.  It also has options to make symbols 8-char or 31-char
significant.  It is better than Latice C, so on the scale above I would
rank it 1.5.
-- 
Continuing Engineering Education Telecommunications
Purdue University 		...!ihnp4!pur-ee!pc-ecn!sandersr

Let's make like a BSD process, and go FORK-OFF !!	-- bob
(and "make" a few children while we're at it ...)