🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <775@laic.UUCP>, jay@void.laic.uucp (Jay Weber) writes:
> 
> Can someone tell me what stops me (if anything) from using Microsoft
> Quick C or even Turbo C for compiling Microsoft Windows applications?
> My Developer's Kit says that the full Microsoft C compiler is required,
> but it is a bit overpriced.

I don't offhand know if you can use Quick C or Turbo C for compiling 
under Microsoft Windows, but be aware that there are some special fixups
required by the compiler to build programs to run under Windows.  In
particular, some of the procedure entry code is a bit odd, and doesn't
follow the normal C calling conventions.  This is turned on with the -Gw
switch in the full Microsoft C compiler;  the switch doesn't seem to
exist in Quick C (though it's possible that you can kludge it in some
other way - maybe with a couple of assembler subroutines).  The compiler 
also has to be able to support the pascal calling sequence.  These are 
the two biggest limitations on using brand-x compilers under Windows.

There are also some restrictions on the use of different memory models:
the small model is the easiest although others are possible with enough
work.  This really doesn't put any serious constraints on using most
compilers, though you do need to be able to explicitly manipulate far
and near pointers.

I doubt that Quick C or Turbo C could be used for Windows, but there
may be some way.  Seems to me that if you have already paid the big $
to buy the Developer's Kit, that the C compiler isn't really all that
expensive.  But then I write code for a living, I suppose if you're on
a student budget it would be different ...

						Bruce C. Wright