From: mcastle AT cs DOT umr DOT edu
Subject: Re: building go32 with borland 3.1
To: kuku AT acds DOT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de (Christoph Kukulies)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:09:25 CST
Cc: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu, mcastle AT mcs213k DOT cs DOT umr DOT edu

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