🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr19.221458.12071@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes:
>From article <1991Apr19.172703.24638@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by aaron@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Aaron Wallace):
>> Hi!  I just got my Borland C++, and in general it looks real nice for Windows
>> stuff.  I'm trying to move over some stuff from MS C 6 to BC++ and have a 
>> question:  I use huge pointers a lot in my code to go through GlobalAlloc'd
>> blocks of memory.  I noticed that BC++ by default implements huge pointers
>> in a way that is certain to cause UAEs under protected mode.  There's a
>> switch for "fast" huge pointers that may implement them correctly, but
>> I can't say.  Does BC++ correctly use the __ahincr to do huge arithmetic?
>> I'd assumed it does--how else could you say it does Windows if it doesn't?
>> Now I'm not certain, and my program that otherwise worked fine when compiled
>> with MSC dies when compiled with BC++.  Well, to be fair it only dies when it
>> goes near huge pointers, but I can't be sure what the exact cause is.
>> 
>> If the answer is RTFM, which FM?  
>
>As far as I know, you can't use the BC++ with its Huge pointers in Windows.
>I don't have my manuals here at my office, but I do remember reading
>something like this.

Using the fast huge pointers did seem to work after all--the UAEs were cause
by an infinitely more embarassing "bug"  (Yes, I confess, I *thought* I had
told BCC+ to make everything exportable...!)

Anyway, BCC+ seems to work like a charm--why can't Microsoft write compilers?
Do they actually use their own?  Maybe that's why it takes them so long to
come out with new software...  

Aaron Wallace