[comp.lang.c] C 6.00 Bug List

jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (02/07/91)

I just purchased Microsoft C 6.00 (tag on the box is labeled C6.00) and am
planning on doing some Windows 3.0 development.  Is there a bug list or 
anything that I should know before pursuing any projects?

Brian

antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) (02/19/91)

In article <26758@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes:
>
>I just purchased Microsoft C 6.00 (tag on the box is labeled C6.00) and am
>planning on doing some Windows 3.0 development.  Is there a bug list or 
>anything that I should know before pursuing any projects?
>
The bug list for C 6.00 is so long that it just isn't worth reading.
Look at the message that appears when you run the compiler.  Look to see
whether you have 6.00 or 6.00a .  If you have 6.00, then run to a telephone
and call Microsoft.  They will send you the "a" version.  With 6.00, i had
a fatal compiler error or bad code generated approx every 2000 lines of
code!  6.00a, on the other hand, works very well for me.  I've ported over
100,000 lines of code to MS C 6.00a with no problems worth mentioning.

dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (02/20/91)

In article <1991Feb19.081101.19806@qualcomm.com> antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) writes:
>In article <26758@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes:
>>
>>I just purchased Microsoft C 6.00 (tag on the box is labeled C6.00)
>>[...]Is there a bug list [...]
>
>The bug list for C 6.00 is so long that it just isn't worth reading.
>[...]

It wouldn't be worth reading to me if it were 1 line.  Please repeat after me:
All the world is not IBM... All the world is not IBM... All the world is not
IBM... All the world is not IBM... All the world is not IBM... All the world
is not IBM... All the world is not IBM... All the world is not IBM... 

This message was posted to comp.lang.c where it has absolutely *no* revelence.
Please pardon the intrusion on the ibm groups, where this question properly
belongs.
-- 
Dave Schaumann      | Is this question undecidable?
dave@cs.arizona.edu |

joevl@mojsys.com (Joe Vlietstra) (02/21/91)

>In article <26758@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) asks:
>I just purchased Microsoft C 6.00 (tag on the box is labeled C6.00)
>[...]Is there a bug list [...]

In article <1991Feb19.081101.19806@qualcomm.com> antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) replies:
>The bug list for C 6.00 is so long that it just isn't worth reading.
>[...]

Refering to the above articles, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) lectures:
>[...]
>This message was posted to comp.lang.c where it has absolutely *no* revelence.
>Please pardon the intrusion on the ibm groups, where this question properly
>belongs.

I understand Mr. Schaumann's concern about a language newsgroup
drifting into MS-DOS topics.  (Try reading comp.lang.pascal.)
But in this instance he's chopped too fine.
Mr. Hook did not ask for a zillion MS-DOS programming tips, he
only asked for a bug list for a specific C compiler.  (Albeit a
C compiler for an MS-DOS machine.)

/* Flame Guard On */
Although comp.lang.c primary topic is the C language itself,
I believe it is apropriate to post articles on closely related
subjects.  (And sometimes, not so closely related subjects.)
The process of newsgroup formation and evolution precludes
rigid guidelines.

Quite frankly, I would rather have the readers of comp.lang.c
determine the worthiness of the Microsoft C compiler than the
readers of any MS-DOS newsgroup.
/* Flame Guard Off */

				Joe Vlietstra

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Vlietstra        | Checked Daily:  ...!uunet!mojsys!joevl
Mojave Systems Corp  | Checked Weekly: mojave@hmcvax.claremont.edu
1254 Harvard Avenue  | Iffy Routing:   joevl@mojsys.com

dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (02/22/91)

In article <1991Feb20.213936.441@mojsys.com> joevl@mojsys.com (Joe Vlietstra) writes:
>>In article <26758@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) asks:
>>I just purchased Microsoft C 6.00 (tag on the box is labeled C6.00)
>>[...]Is there a bug list [...]
>
>In article <1991Feb19.081101.19806@qualcomm.com> antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) replies:
>>The bug list for C 6.00 is so long that it just isn't worth reading.
>>[...]
>
>Refering to the above articles, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) lectures:
>>[...]
>>This message was posted to comp.lang.c where it has absolutely *no* revelence.
>I understand Mr. Schaumann's concern about a language newsgroup
>drifting into MS-DOS topics.  (Try reading comp.lang.pascal.)
>But in this instance he's chopped too fine.

Possibly so.  I guess I'm willing to admit that a single post to comp.lang.c
on this topic wouldn't be too horrible, especially if the follow-ups were
directed to the appropriate machine-specific group.

>[...]
>/* Flame Guard On */
>Although comp.lang.c primary topic is the C language itself,
>I believe it is apropriate to post articles on closely related
>subjects.  (And sometimes, not so closely related subjects.)
>The process of newsgroup formation and evolution precludes
>rigid guidelines.

Perhaps.  But newsgroup evolution does not preclude the attemt to guide its
direction.  Interestingly, I only received mail from 3 individuals regarding
this post.  1 person suggested we create comp.lang.c.msdos (or whatever name
you like).  I don't think this will  solve the problem.  There is already
comp.sys.ibm.programmer (or something very like that), and if that group is
overflowing with C questions, a more proper new group would be something
like comp.sys.ibm.programmer.c.

Another person claimed I should simply use my 'n' & 'k' keys to avoid such
posts, and it was unreasonable for me to complain about the large amount
of bandwidth that has no useful information to me.  I guess he also holds
that it is unreasonable to expect  posters to choose appropriate newsgroups.

The final person argued much as you do, that a certain amount of machine-
specific traffic on comp.lang.c is appropriate.  Which I suppose is true,
but I would hold that followups should be appropriately directed and rigorously
followed.

Finally, I would like to say that I really do not enjoy playing net.cop for
comp.lang.c, and I'll have nothing more to post on this topic.

	"and there was much rejoicing..."	_Monty Python & the Holy Grail_

>Joe Vlietstra        | Checked Daily:  ...!uunet!mojsys!joevl

-- 
Dave Schaumann      | Is this question undecidable?
dave@cs.arizona.edu |