daveh@marob.MASA.COM (Dave Hammond) (04/10/89)
There were 2 primary reasons why I felt it worth upgrading from the 2.2 Dev Sys (distributed with 2.3.1), and the 2.3 Dev Sys. The first was an improved Curses port (and it is). The second was "COFF compatibility". After upgrading to 2.3, and scouring *all* available docs, the only occurances of the pattern "COFF" which I found, were on the ld(C) man page, where it states that COFF objects are transparently linked with Xenix binaries, and on the directory(S) man page, where it states that the -ldir set of directory functions must be used to produce COFF-compatible binaries. Nowhere does it state that 2.3 allows you to *produce* a COFF-compatible object file! Not only that, SCO tech support (NOT to reduce this to a SCO tech support flame fest) informed me that they had no information about producing COFF objects; had never had any inquiries about that subject; and it was probably a marketting "future consideration" issue, at best. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else on the net who feels that producing COFF-compatible binaries should be higher on SCO's list of priorities, than a "marketting future consideration"? For the first time in 4 years, I am actively pursuing a non-SCO Intel/Unix environment. A copy of 386/ix with VPIX and X-Windows arrives here shortly. (I guess its time to "g comp.unix.i386" :-\) -- Dave Hammond daveh@marob.masa.com
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (04/12/89)
In article <612@marob.MASA.COM> daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond) writes: | Is there anyone else on the net who feels that producing COFF-compatible | binaries should be higher on SCO's list of priorities, than a "marketting | future consideration"? Since V.3.2 will run Xenix executables, I'm not sure I have any interest in getting COFF binaries. If you sell libraries, I can see that it would be desirable, but otherwise... who cares? Having tried a number of COFF files under 2.3.1 I am pretty sure that you would be able to run the software development package from any V.3.2 under Xenix to produce COFF. | For the first time in 4 years, I am actively pursuing a non-SCO Intel/Unix | environment. A copy of 386/ix with VPIX and X-Windows arrives here shortly. | (I guess its time to "g comp.unix.i386" :-\) I looked, but I guess I'll wait for SCO3.2 and/or Open Workbench or whatever. I want NFS and X, but I need reliability more than capability. I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone's tech support, but SCO doesn't have the worst in the industry. -- bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
rosso@sco.COM (Ross Oliver) (04/14/89)
In article <612@marob.MASA.COM> daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond) writes: >Nowhere does it state that 2.3 allows you to *produce* a COFF-compatible >object file! Not only that, SCO tech support (NOT to reduce this to >a SCO tech support flame fest) informed me that they had no information >about producing COFF objects; had never had any inquiries about that >subject; and it was probably a marketting "future consideration" issue, >at best. Thank you very much. The 2.3 Development System cannot generate COFF object modules or COFF executables. It can link existing COFF object modules and libraries into XENIX executables. The upcoming 3.2 Development System will include both the AT&T and Microsoft C compilers, and all the utilities needed to generate both COFF and XENIX (x.out) object modules and executables. Ross Oliver Technical Support The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.