stu@stu.scs.com (Stu Brown) (12/10/90)
Last week I posted a question about using Quick C & Assembler 2.51 versus Microsoft C 6.0 on a large application, the PCIP tcp/ip package from MIT. Here is a followup. I decided to buy the Quick C & Assembler package. I compiled and assembled the PCIP package with small modifications to makefiles intended for regular Microsoft C. All of the utilities I needed were included with the Quick C package: linker, librarian, compiler, assembler, make (called nmake). I compiled and assembled about 16,500 lines of code in various PCIP libraries. The only "bug" I found is that the compiler complains when you call a function which is later declared as static. For example: main() { ... myfunc(a); ... } static myfunc(x) { ... } The compiler quits on a fatal error about a changing declaration. This is fixed by declaring the function at the top of the program: static myfunc(); main() { ... myfunc(a); ... } static myfunc(x) { ... } I linked up the ping program and it worked. I have not tried the larger application, telnet. As I understand from a comparison sheet that Microsoft puts out that compares Quick C with regular C, the only significant difference is the level of optimization available. I don't know if the library support is different since PCIP relies very little on libraries (it implements most functions itself). I was very happy to save about $300. -- Stuart Brown Mentor Graphics Corporation Silicon Design Division (N.J.) uunet!sdl!stu