jtt@tct.uucp (John Tombs) (01/04/91)
The output from cc -Fs file.c is a nicely paginated source listing (file.S). At the top of each page is shown Microsoft's compiler version. Try it; you may find the results interesting. By the way, my version is labelled 3.2.2b. -- John Tombs at Teltronics/TCT <jtt@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!jtt>
jmc@teqsoft.UUCP (Jack Cloninger) (01/04/91)
jtt@tct.uucp (John Tombs) writes: >The output from cc -Fs file.c is a nicely paginated source listing (file.S). >At the top of each page is shown Microsoft's compiler version. Try it; you >may find the results interesting. >By the way, my version is labelled 3.2.2b. >-- >John Tombs at Teltronics/TCT <jtt@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!jtt> My version is labelled 3.2.2a and prints "C Optimizing Compiler Version 5.10.010 (Beta). We didn't volunteer to be a beta test site either! It's probably just a module that was overlooked, but it does make you wonder about their source code version control, doesn't it? Jack -- Jack Cloninger, TeqSoft, 112 US Highway 1, Tequesta, FL 33469 B-) jmc%teqsoft@domain.com OR ...uunet!comtst!teqsoft!jmc Phone: 407-747-7163 Fax: 407-747-0354 Disclaimer: I speak for myself, not my company, and offer opinion, not fact.
vlr@litwin.com (Vic Rice) (01/05/91)
jtt@tct.uucp (John Tombs) writes: >The output from cc -Fs file.c is a nicely paginated source listing (file.S). >At the top of each page is shown Microsoft's compiler version. Try it; you >may find the results interesting. >By the way, my version is labelled 3.2.2b. Interesting... I have SCO ODT 1.0.0y (i.e. SYSV 3.2.1). Using the -Fs switch yields: Compiler error : Segmentation violation *** Error code 11 Is this a known compiler bug ??? -- Dr. Victor L. Rice Litwin Process Automation
dsmythe@netcom.UUCP (Dave Smythe) (01/07/91)
In article <39@teqsoft.UUCP> jmc@teqsoft.UUCP (Jack Cloninger) writes: >jtt@tct.uucp (John Tombs) writes: > >>The output from cc -Fs file.c is a nicely paginated source listing (file.S). >My version is labelled 3.2.2a and prints "C Optimizing Compiler Version >5.10.010 (Beta). We didn't volunteer to be a beta test site either! It's >probably just a module that was overlooked, but it does make you wonder >about their source code version control, doesn't it? > >Jack Considering the number of bugs we've found, I think that it *is* still beta. It is more likely than not that syntax errors in the compiler produce segmentation violations, in my experience. Sometimes you don't even get the benefit of an error message telling you what source line caused the problem! I *hate* whittling my source (plus a million includes) down using #if 0 just to find a silly typo... We *are* using ODT 1.0 with some interim fixes sent by SCO, so maybe we just are suffering from old bugs. I don't trust that damn Microsoft compiler, though. Even *without* -O... I just tell people to run the code through gcc if Microsoft can't tell them where the errors are. Just my $.02. Just as an aside, does anyone else seem to encounter more problems with software companies that are 'getting into UNIX' from the DOS side than with brand-new UNIX software companies? Or are the problems just different? Perhaps I am more critical of them having come from there... Or perhaps I am sensitive because the enlightened management (:-() at the company I work for are making the step up (!) from SunOS to SCO... blech. D