Ghenis.pasa@xerox.ARPA (12/16/86)
>In article <4840@reed.UUCP> keithb@reed.UUCP (Keith Brown) writes: >> >>Wanted/Needed: A real legal copy of the Aztec C compiler for my >>Epson QX-10 CP/M computer. Must have the manual and all 'comes-withs'. >> >>And, oh yes, I'm willin to pay for it, too. Other 5.25" CP/M formats >>would probably be acceptable. > >I also need a good C compiler under CP/M. I'm on a Kaypro. Aztec C >would be dandy, but Software Toolworks C would be ok also. > So why don't you guys just go ahead and buy your compilers directly from Aztec or Software Toolworks? They will be very happy to sell you a real legal copy, and carry both QX-10 and Kaypro formats. Mix also has a C compiler for just $39, with tons of documentation, a good deal for a learning tool. Remember that info-cpm isn't for classified ads (at least on the ARPANET side). Cheers! -- Pablo Ghenis
keithb@reed.UUCP (Keith Brown) (12/17/86)
In article <1560@brl-adm.ARPA> Ghenis.pasa@xerox.ARPA writes: >>In article <4840@reed.UUCP> keithb@reed.UUCP (Keith Brown) writes: >> >>Wanted/Needed: A real legal copy of the Aztec C compiler for >>my Epson QX-10 CP/M computer. Must have the manual and all >>'comes-withs'. [...] > >So why don't you guys ... buy your compilers directly from >Aztec or Software Toolworks? They will ... sell you a real >legal copy,... Mix also has a C compiler for just $39, with >tons of documentation, a good deal for a learning tool. > [...] -- Pablo Ghenis The reason I posted this to the net is that most of you reading this are now developing under the *nix environment. Many of you who may have bought a 'real legal' copy of the Aztec C compiler no longer use or need it. I'm simply offering an oportunity for someone to re-coup a little of their investment by selling a tool they no longer need. As it turns out, I ran out of time and so have purchased my own copy directly. However, I've received requests from others to turn over any 'extra' leads to them. As for MIX C, I've also heard that it's worthless for serious work. I have tried it, along with SuperSoft, Ecco, and BDS. None are full implementations of C (at least in the versions I've got). -Keith Brown ...!tektronix!reed!keithb
mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) (12/18/86)
In article <4936@reed.UUCP> keithb@reed.UUCP (Keith Brown) writes: >In article <1560@brl-adm.ARPA> Ghenis.pasa@xerox.ARPA writes: >>>In article <4840@reed.UUCP> keithb@reed.UUCP (Keith Brown) writes: >>> >>>Wanted/Needed: A real legal copy of the Aztec C compiler for >>>my Epson QX-10 CP/M computer. Must have the manual and all >>>'comes-withs'. [...] >> >>So why don't you guys ... buy your compilers directly from >>Aztec or Software Toolworks? They will ... sell you a real ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How is the C by Software Toolworks? I understand it is about $50 for CP/M. >As for MIX C, I've also heard that it's worthless for serious work. >I have tried it, along with SuperSoft, Ecco, and BDS. None are full >implementations of C (at least in the versions I've got). Is Software Toolworks C a full implementation (or close)? -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Mark Steven Jeghers ECHOMPGULP - process has eaten it | | cryptography, terrorist, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO | | | | {ihnp4,cbosgd,lll-lcc,lll-crg}|{dual,ptsfa}!cogent!mark | | | | Cogent Software Solutions can not be held responsible for anything said | | by the above person since they have no control over him in the first place | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
root@GALBPBB.UUCP (12/30/86)
In article <109@cogent.UUCP> mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) writes: >How is the C by Software Toolworks? I understand it is about $50 >for CP/M. DO NOT GET THIS COMPILER!!! I got one and the stupid thing stacks the arguements to subroutines in REVERSE ORDER!!! This makes routines like printf and scanf very awkward. They have to define a macro which expands into two calls; the first to a routine that marks the stack position in a global variable, then they call a bastardized printf that looks at the args backwards from the global variable content. Now, if you can live with that crap, I have nothing but contempt for you. galbp!bing
dcd@tc.fluke.COM (David Dyck) (01/05/87)
I've used the Software Toolworks C compiler for a while and while it does push the arguments to functions in reverse order (like the Small-c compiler), it does document this. I used the compiler to write filters and some comunications programs (it does allow #asm inline assembly). It got the job done for me and the price was right. David Dyck dcd@tc.fluke.com