home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: yarrow.wt.com.au!usenet
- From: bvarley@yarrow.wt.com.au (bruce varley)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Compiler Cross-Compatiility?
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 06:50:40 GMT
- Organization: Winthrop Technology
- Message-ID: <4db62i$249@yarrow.wt.com.au>
- References: <DL4vr1.3yp@eskimo.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: yarrow
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- Skye,
-
- I posted a query re MS/Borland object file compatibility. The one
- respondent suggested that they were cross-usable provided one didn't v
- include any 'specials' in the link, and made sure that memory models
- were compatible. Since then, I've attempted to combine some extremely
- simple object files from the different compilers, with absolutely no
- success - the symbols aren't recognised by the other compiler. I've
- since given up on that approach. If you do find an answer to this, I'd
- appreciate being informed.
-
- As for source code, about the only area of incompatibility I've
- experienced in porting a fairly large volume of C from MS quick C
- Verson 1.0 and MSC4 to BC3.0/3.1 has been the differences in function
- names, mainly the more package-specific areas such as graphics. As I
- recall, everything worked fine once the function names had been
- adjusted. That isn't to say that your particular code wouldn't throw
- up additional problems, however.
-
- If you're linking in ASM modules, the ASM segment definition
- statements for MS and BC are somewhat different.
-
- Good luck
-
-