Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!carssdf!usenet
From: usenet@carssdf.UUCP (UseNet Id.)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix Executables
Summary: what about the sort utility?
Keywords: 8086, not 80386
Message-ID: <231@carssdf.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jan 90 14:59:47 GMT
References: <165@raider.MFEE.TN.US> <857@jetsun.WEITEK.COM> <535@bbxsda.UUCP>
Organization: C.A.R.S.,Middlesex,NJ
Lines: 11

In article <535@bbxsda.UUCP>, scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes:
> >>Could someone tell me, why on earth would SCO not simply recompile these things
> >>to take advantage of the 80386 ? SCO ?? 
> >somebody run 47 tests on the program if it hasn't changed. It was a

The one utility that I think would benefit considerably from an environment
free of 64K boundaries is the sort.  Can any of theses people that analyze
the passage of programs to higher forms tell me if any significant improv-
ments have been made with sort?

John Watson   ...!rutgers!carssdf!usenet