[comp.lang.c] Microsoft C 6.0 on a PC-NFS client

kxb@hilbert.math.ksu.edu (Karl Buck) (11/13/90)

We are having trouble getting MSC 6.0 to recognize the include files on a
network drive. The environment variables all seem to be set up right and the
proper permissions are on the directories and files. Since I'm sure this
is a simple problem I'd apprectiate any answers by Email. Thanks.
--
 731 Moro             popeye@matt.ksu.ksu.edu     kxb@hilbert.math.ksu.edu 
 Manhattan, KS 66502  popeye@ksuvm.ksu.edu        kxb@einstein.mpccl.ksu.edu 
 (913)537-3666        kxb@phobos.cis.ksu.edu   

west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) (11/13/90)

In article <1990Nov12.203707.9669@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> kxb@hilbert.math.ksu.edu (Karl Buck) writes:
>We are having trouble getting MSC 6.0 to recognize the include files on a
>network drive. The environment variables all seem to be set up right and the
>proper permissions are on the directories and files. Since I'm sure this
>is a simple problem I'd apprectiate any answers by Email. Thanks.

  Good luck, MSC 6.0 requires every spare bit that you can round up.  Having
PC-NFS up will eat way more memory than MSC 6.0 is willing to accept.  We
eventually had to give up the idea of using our SUNs to store source to
our program, a real pain.  And no, MSC 6.0 does *not* use extended memory
when compiling, so your extra 2 meg sit by idle while it complains about
noit enough memory.  And yes, MSC 6.0 is filled with bugs.  And yes, the
update doesn't come with a change history, so it is next to useless unless
you have the time to go through each of the code generation bugs you've
found by yourself *since MS doesn't give out bug lists* and check the assembler
output yourself.  And yes, MS does charge an arm and a leg for such a compiler.

  On the other hand, CV 3.0 is pretty nifty, aside from the fact that you can't
feed your programs Ctrl-Breaks.  (CV steals them all.)  However, CV DOES
use the extended memory you might have (yeah!).

				Tom West