Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!ka3ovk!ki4pv!cdin-1!dsinc!lgnp1!penrij!soup
From: soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: DOS cross-development (assembly) on Xenix
Summary: MASM / C : XENIX Versions
Message-ID: <102@penrij.LS.COM>
Date: 10 Feb 90 14:19:59 GMT
References: <26709@cup.portal.com>
Organization: penrij, Perkasie PA
Lines: 28

In article <26709@cup.portal.com>, compata@cup.portal.com (David H Close) writes:
> My system is running Xenix 2.3.3 with the 2.2 development system.  How
> this translates to the version of Masm under DOS is not apparent.  Using
.
.
.
>                          Would the 2.3 development system succeed in these
> assemblies?  What version of Masm do I have?

	Dev Sys 2.2 is MASM/C 4.00 which work PFG.  You might want 2.3's
	MASM (5.0) but YOU DO NOT WANT THE C COMPILER.  Microsoft broke
	so many things when they went to 5.0.  The 5.0 C compiler can't
	generate 86 OR 286 code reliably (-M0, -M2).  This burned my
	hind end pretty badly.  It doesn't do too hot on 386 code,
	either.

	Microsoft put in plenty of nice features in order to compete
	with Borland that, like Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, their
	minor design flaws disguise their major design flaws.

	BTW, look for a file named "masm86" which is intended to assume
	the stoopid CPU's (16 rather than 32 bit).  I had problems with
	8086/286 code assembled in "the big guy".


--
 John R. Campbell	...!uunet!lgnp1!penrij!soup	  (soup@penrij.LS.COM)
		 "In /dev/null no one can hear you scream"