Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!hao!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!man!nusdhub!rwhite
From: rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: making COM program using assembly language with C routines ?
Message-ID: <172@nusdhub.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Oct-87 17:33:18 EST
Article-I.D.: nusdhub.172
Posted: Thu Oct 22 17:33:18 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 06:18:43 EST
References: <200@tiger.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: National University, San Diego
Lines: 23
Keywords: COM
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.ibm.pc:8025 comp.lang.c:4841
Summary: my version...

In article <200@tiger.Princeton.EDU>, wei@tiger.Princeton.EDU (P Wei) writes:
> I am using IBM MASM 2.0 and MSC 4.0.
> The problem is that I want to make a COM program written in assembly
> language in which I call some comercial library routines written in C.
[ Code that crashed the linker [etc] deleted.

My version of Microsoft C came with a program to make it's executables
into .COM programs.

My other question is WHY?  everythign you can do with .COM you can do
with .EXE.  The load is a fraction longer to accomidate runtime relocation
but the memory usage, speed, terminate and stay resident abilities [etc]
are all equally effective.

[This is now also true for device driver and etc.  If the program you
are writing is excessively small, the libraries are gonna grow it
without mercy, making it just as wasy to call the asm routines from
main() durring the first execution.]

Remember, the relocation information is removed durring load so the
in memory cost is comprable even though the disk space used is larger.

Rob.