Mail Archives: djgpp/1993/01/27/20:57:55
Amazingly enough Christoph Kukulies said:
> I recall that the -3 option was *necessary* when compiling go32 using
> TASM 3.x. Otherwise there was some 32 bit related error message,
> if memory serves.
>
> --Chris
>
Yes, the -3 option is necessary for TASM, but I gathered from the
post I copied that there is an undocumented -3 option for BCC which
generates 386 code (like -2 generates 286 code). What I was trying
to figure out is whether or not this was true.
ie: can bcc 3.1, when compiling a .c file with the -3 option produce
386 specific (and hopefully better) code?
It may have been the person I was quoting was confusing the -3 option
for the linker with a non-existent -3 option for the compiler. That's
what I was trying to figure out.
Does anyone have bcc 3.1 and can test to see if this really is an
undocumented feature, or merely confusion between compiler and linker
options.
mrc
--
Mike Castle .-=NEXUS=-. Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
mcastle AT cs DOT umr DOT edu and be right all the time, or not work at all
S087891 AT UMRVMA DOT UMR DOT EDU and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
- Raw text -