Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/08/08/02:50:23
Art S. Kagel wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Lee, Sung-Tae wrote:
>
> > Hi, I may be new djgpp-user(download djgpp because of memory trouble
> in
> > Turbo-C 3.0).
> >
> > I find that my code which run well in workstation(I don't know its
> > capacity yet.)
> > don't run in PC with 16M ram, Pentium133, Win95...
> >
> > I wrote my code in standard-C.
> >
> > Making .exe file is successful by 'djgpp'. But don't run. I want to
> make
> > my code run well in PC.
> >
> > Well, as you know, lahey fortran compiler use as large RAM as
> possible.
> > Then, how is 'djgpp'?
> >
> What version did you download? This sounds suspiciously like 1.12.
> DJGPP V1 did not generate .exe files directly you had to:
>
> gcc -o myprog myproc.c
> coff2exe myprog
>
> To get myprog.exe which will run. If you have V1, get V2 it is MUCH
> MUCH better and more stable to boot and can generate .exe format files
>
> directly.
>
> Art S. Kagel, kagel AT bloomberg DOT com
I have V2. I guess that you didn't understand what I said... I think
it is because I
am not English speaker. "kr" in gong.snu.ac.kr means "Korea".
I found that 'djgpp' was very good. What I said was Memory Trouble...
My alternative for Turbo-C 3.0 was 'djgpp' because of memory limitation
of Turbo-C 3.0.
What I want is ability of 'djgpp' in terms of Memory treatment compared
with 'Lahey Fortran'.
Program made by Lahey fortan can use as large memory as possible. But I
guess that program
made by 'djgpp' do not.
Trouble I have is I can't port my code in workstation to PC.
My code(written in standard-C) is good in workstation.
- Raw text -