Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:5025 comp.unix.microport:2850
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!spdcc!dyer
From: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: UNIX assemblers and SCO
Keywords: compatible?
Message-ID: <2598@spdcc.SPDCC.COM>
Date: 17 Feb 89 03:20:12 GMT
References: <647@cimcor.mn.org> <13163@steinmetz.ge.com>
Reply-To: dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Distribution: usa
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 27

In article <13163@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>  Define "support." SCO supports the UNIX assembler in the same way that
>MS-DOS supports 1-2-3. You're welcome to run it if you wish. Programs
>using COFF format seem to run just fine under the recent versions of
>Xenix. SCO doesn't *sell* that assembler, just as IBM doesn't supply
>1-2-3.

The absence of UNIX V/386 "as" hasn't been too heavy a burden to bear,
although it prevents me from running programs compiled (into assembly
language) with GCC.  Still, I find Bill's analogy rather forced.
SCO, insofaras it licenses UNIX V/386 from AT&T (which contains "as"),
has the prerogative to ship UNIX "as" but it (at least right now)
elects not to do so.  This is not quite the same as IBM electing
not to supply 1-2-3.

I don't know what the big deal would be to ship both the SCO "as" and "ld"
along with the AT&T "masm" and "ld".  It's really only important for
compiler writers, who quite naturally want a uniform environment
across all 386 UNIX boxes.

I've never complained to SCO about this, so they haven't had the courtesy
of responding.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
dyer@arktouros.mit.edu