|-----------------|Ronald Van Iwaarden wrote:

BD>I am currently using Borland C/C++ v3.1 to compile my DOS
BD>programs and EMX v0.9a to compile my OS/2 programs, but I
BD>noticed a few peculiarities which I would like to have
BD>cleared up.

RI>First of all, the EMX program is well over 3 times larger
RI>than the Borland version - and it is the *exact* same code.
RI>Is this due to the compiler or do OS/2 programs naturally
RI>take up more room?

RI> There could be many reasons, the biggest of which is all the debugging
RI> code and not using optimization. I have a program that is 561k in the
RI> development form and 167k in the release version.  Here is an article
RI> that I read on the Internet mailing list that has been very helpful to

Thank-You for the article, I put it in a nice safe place after reading the
first half.  At least I know why I keep on running across programs requiring
the EMX dlls.  I never really used dlls before so I can't really say I know
much about them - I haven't done much programming on IBM PCs and most of my
experience is with AppleSoft BASIC and binary files.

RI> However, when I run the program for DOS, by typing "PORTDOS"
RI> it will return the command line as "G:\PROGRAM\PORTDOS.EXE"
RI> Yet the OS/2 program (run by typing "PORTOS2") will return
RI> it as "PORTOS2"

RI>Although I get what I expect from EMX, I do prefer what the
RI>DOS version returns.  At any rate, is there anyway to change
RI>them so that they are both the same?

RI>> Hmmm.  Not sure.

In that case, I think I will just make a little function to fix that.

Once again, thank-you.
---
 þ TLX v4.10 þ There's got to be more to life than compile--and--go.

--- Blue Wave/Max v2.12 OS/2 [NR]