Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!haven!ncifcrf!nlm-mcs!adm!cmcl2!lanl!unm-la!unmvax!wampler
From: wampler@unmvax.unm.edu (Bruce Wampler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: MS QuickC Misinformation
Keywords: Misinformation misinformation
Message-ID: <2063@unmvax.unm.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 88 22:49:26 GMT
References: <2041@unmvax.unm.edu> <1860@loral.UUCP>
Organization: University of New Mexico at Albuquerque
Lines: 21

> I should mention that this was version 5.0, if the large model works in
> 5.1 I'd love to hear about it.  Please don't say "My sisters third cousin
> removed uses it for everything", I just want to hear "I've used quick C
> version 5.1 large model for months now with no problems".
> 
Well, a follow-up to my original article. I've developed a VERY large
commercially sold program (Grammatik III, to be specific). It uses
large model. We do almost ALL of the development in QuickC, including
testing, etc., etc., and have not detected ANY difference in operation
other than .EXE size and speed between QuickC and regular MSC - this
is true for both 5.0 and 5.1.  The ONLY problem we've found in with
the QuickC /Zr switch (generates checks for pointer usage), which does
not work for large model.

I've also done this for a couple of other big programs. Not only is
QuickC faster for development, it works with CodeView. We've been
plenty happy with MSC since 3.0, so I may be out of touch with the
competition these days, but MSC 5.1 seems to generate very good
code as long as you don't use /Gs /Oait for optimization.

Bruce Wampler
Reference Software, Inc.