Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!lll-winken!uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fylz!fyl From: fyl@fylz.UUCP (Phil Hughes) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: ENIX V.3.2 info Summary: here is what I did Message-ID: <551@fylz.UUCP> Date: 11 Aug 89 14:56:40 GMT References: <1539@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <6972@megatest.UUCP> Organization: FYL, Seattle, WA Lines: 29 In article <6972@megatest.UUCP>, palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: > From article <1539@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, by davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (ody): > > In article <36041@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: > > It depends on what your target is... if you need to run in UNIX and > > MS-DOS the Xenix cross compiler will save you a lot of time. You can use > > one make file to roll both versions, and Xenix/286, too. That's > > important if you resell (or give away) your software. And the new > With alot of the dos software that makes extensive use of graphics > libs that are not available on xenix I don't think this is a good > route to go. Another alternative is to use Merge, VPIX, SimulTask > and if you can run both compiliers. After trying a few options, I ended up with ENIX on a 386 as the "real" system and an XT with DOS 2.10 and a used copy of Turbo C 1.5 as the "compile and test it for DOS" platform. I found that VP/ix under Xenix would crash with my application that works fine on DOS. Also, as the product is designed to run on the minimum of DOS systems, having a "minimum" to actually test it on is helpful. The development and testing is done with the ENIX system and all the real source is maintained there as well as the distribution system. The only thing different is the Borland style make file. -- Phil Hughes -- FYL -- 8315 Lk City Wy NE -- Suite 207 -- Seattle, WA 98115 {amc-gw,uunet!pilchuck}!ssc!fylz!fyl