🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug14.172301.3596@microsoft.com>, gregde@microsoft.com (Greg Demichillie) writes:
 > In article <1992Aug13.211344.10040@odi.com> ed@odi.com (Ed Schwalenberg) writes:
 > >In article <1992Aug11.020925.18514@microsoft.com> johnkal@microsoft.com (John Kallen) writes:
 > >
 > > With luck, a standard DOS/Win/OS-2 name-mangling will evolve. Until
 > > then, one will have to have sources to libraries, or compiler-vendor-dependent
 > > .LIB files (bleargh...)
 > >
 > >Let's assume that a standard name-mangling exists.  You're still in the soup
 > >unless object layout (alignment rules, location of vptrs, size of vtbls, etc)
 > >is identical and calling conventions are identical.
 > 
 > The fact the different vendors use different name mangling schemes is a
 > good thing precisely because of the point you make.  If we all had the
 > same mangling you would get strange run-time behavior instead of
 > link errors.  
 > 
 > -Greg

To finish this off: I checked out the Borland white paper on converting
MFC to compile with BC.  The changes are fairly extensive, in my opinion.
Boy, do I wish diffs were standard under MSDOS.  

Does anyone have the diffs, BTW?  I guess I have a diff port that should
take'em.

 
 > -- 
 > Greg DeMichillie          
 > gregde@microsoft.com      -- All opinions are mine, not Microsoft's -- 

-- 
Cheers from Robert Schmidt, aka Ztiff Zox, aka Buuud (IRC).  E-mail to 
robert@solan.unit.no, snail-mail to Stud.techn. Robert Schmidt, Stud.post 170,
Norwegian Institute of Technology, 7034 Trondheim, NORWAY          

Warlords: Now do you think my .sig is boring enough?