Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!yetti!unicus!emc
From: emc@unicus.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ for Intel 286??
Message-ID: <1539@unicus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Nov-87 18:20:01 EST
Article-I.D.: unicus.1539
Posted: Mon Nov  9 18:20:01 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Nov-87 00:12:35 EST
References: <4800003@uiucdcsm>
Reply-To: emc@unicus.COM (Eric M. Carroll)
Organization: Unicus Corporation, Toronto, Ont, Canada
Lines: 21
Summary: near/far considered dangerous


I too am interested in the state of 80x86 C++ compilers currently on the
market. I have this vague, and likely unfounded, hope that the one of
the two C++ compilers that I know of (Lifeboat and Guidelines) would
hide the entire near/far pointer problem from the C++ code. I was
thinking that cfront could be set up to select which pointers to use and
issue the correct C with near/far keywords. Can anyone inform me of what
these manufacturers have in fact done with this problem? We plan on
getting C++ sources anyway, so if we have to, we could do it ourselves. 
I cannot think of any cases where I want C++ to recognize near/far
in applications programming (we are not reimplementing malloc or
anything like that in general). If I really need it, I could always go
to pure C.

Finally, I have heard of subtle incompatabilites between cfront and pcc
when dealing with pure C code. Does a list of known gotchas exist?
-- 
	Eric.M.Carroll@Unicus.COM				  (Internet)
	{uunet!mnetor, utzoo!utgpu!utcsri}!unicus!emc		  (dumb UUCP)
	mnetor!unicus!emc@uunet.UU.NET				  (dumb ARPA)
	"The abscence of tedium IS magic" - Paul Menon