home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news1.halcyon.com!chinook!jars
- From: jars@chinook.halcyon.com (Juan Rodriguez)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: VC++ portable to Borland C++??
- Date: 20 Jan 1996 23:44:06 GMT
- Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services
- Message-ID: <4druo6$dr3@news1.halcyon.com>
- References: <4dogas$jm6@bs33n.staffs.ac.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: chinook.halcyon.com
-
- In article <4dogas$jm6@bs33n.staffs.ac.uk>,
- cm2bcjr1 <cm2bcjr1@bs47c.staffs.ac.uk> wrote:
- >I am having trouble linking a MSVC++ program with a Borland compiler.
- >I am using Borland C/C++ ver 3.1. and I think the VC is version 2.0.
- >The program compiles fine but it blows up when I link it. I've set Borlands
- >library and include directories to reference all VCs equivalent directories.
- >I get the feeling that Microsoft and Borland don't make portability easy
- >between the two compilers because of their rivalry.
-
- There might be more funddamental reasons; for example, I understand Borland
- C/C++ 3.1 is a 16 bit compiler; and I am sure Visual C++ 2.0 is a 32 bit
- compiler. Then, there just might be some problems with the name decoration
- (a. k. a. "mangling"). Considrgint this, if rivalry has any influence, it is
- a VERY distant third nevertheless.
-
-
-
-
- Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Sero; jars@halcyon.com
- Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 - 2940, U. S. A.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- The longer I live, the more I see that I am never wrong about anything,
- and that all the pains I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have
- only wasted my time.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
-