Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!warwick!geoff From: geoff@warwick.UUCP (Geoff Rimmer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: portability Summary: MSDOS, QuickC Message-ID: <908@ubu.warwick.UUCP> Date: 16 Jan 89 23:28:44 GMT References: <1354@tank.uchicago.edu> <3377@arcturus> Sender: news@warwick.UUCP Reply-To: geoff@emerald.UUCP (Geoff Rimmer) Organization: Computer Science, Warwick University, UK Lines: 53 In article bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: >evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie) writes: >> In article <1354@tank.uchicago.edu>, goer@sophist.uucp (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >> > QUESTION: What compiler for use under MS-DOS is the most portable? >> I have had a lot of luck with Microsoft C (not Quick-C, for which I can >> say nothing as I have not tried it). It seems to be one of the richest >> versions of the language I have seen and it makes small, fast code. You >> can certainly utilize its capabilities to write (expansive) code that >> is portable. > >Assuming, of course, that you don't use one of the 437,889 microsoft >extensions to the language... > Awww come on! The main extensions they have provided are not essential to programming in C - a lot of the extensions are things like new keywords like pascal, fortran, cdecl, far, near, huge. The first 3 are only useful if you're linking your C object files with Pascal (hmph), BASIC (uggh!), or FORTRAN (agghh); and I have never used the last 3 - I can easily get by without them - I just compile using a different memory model. Other extensions to the language are concerned with things like allowing ',' instead of ',...' for variable argument functions, and so on. On the question of Quick C as mentioned by Richard Goerwitz above, I've found it a VERY useful piece of software. It's not just a compiler, but a good editor as well - in fact you now get Quick C free with Microsoft C 5.1 BTW, can anyone tell me if the keyword 'volatile' is part of the ANSI standard? (I mean is it true to say that all ANSI C compilers must have the keyword volatile WORKING (i.e. semantically as well as syntactically)?) ------------------------------------------------------------ Geoff Rimmer, Computer Science, Warwick University, England. geoff@uk.ac.warwick.emerald "If there's one thing I hate in British showbusiness MORE than you, it's that bunch of people who made one half-funny gag at Live at the Palladium and have made a fortune doing game shows ever since. 'Oh and your name is Cynthia and you'd like me to patronise and humiliate you on the offchance of winning a teasmade.' Cheeky chappies? More like complete and utter bastards if you ask me!" - Filthy Rich and Catflap, 1986. ------------------------------------------------------------