This is an archive of CompuServe forum messages from 1985 to 1995, as saved in transcripts by John Foust.
Search Results (128 messages)
Touchee! Yet again, division of source is a matter of convenience. I find it easier to code using several large modules rather than too many small ones.
Ah, but I do have a rather fast (2500) Amiga. And my compile times aren't long. For this reason, I see absolutely no reason to code using multitudinous source modules. I take it as an affront that SDB does not support my personal preference for coding. Should I change my…
I *just* knew I was not alone :-). Ben, did you just recently take up am. radio?
It's hard to say whether or not you should upgrade. I've found several bugs in 5.0a, so it may be better to wait awhile. On the other hand, I value ANSI compatibility, and find function prototypes almost essential. If you don't mind putting up with a few bugs, I'd say…
Are you running under an official release of AmigaDOS? If so what version?
Perhaps you're right John. However, by the time a big project gets done, you'd probably (at least I would) end up with 20+ modules. How would you ever find anything? I guess this represents a matter of coding style. I like fewer source modules with rather broad topical content. Using…
Well said John. Guess I'm a sucker for ANSI compatibility though :-).
Aw, come on John. My modules are organized by topic. The current program I'm working on currently has 8 modules, and 3 header files. I comment my source code liberally, so not withstanding the division of source among several modules, it is not uncommon to see a couple 1000+ line…
Your development strategey seems reasonable – maintain code with proven compilers. I'm developing new stuff though. Perhaps the current strain (of compilers) will be stable by the time I get done. BTW – How's Syndesis?
I hear you Mike. Certainly it is much easier tracking down bugs with concrete examples. On the other hand, as a consumer, I feel that pin-pointing bugs is not my responsibility. Beta-testers get paid for that. I, on the other hand, have to take valuable time away from programming to…
Mike, while on the subject of prototypes, I might add that arguments for functions within functions are dropped as the following example illustrates. The prototype for void more( int (*function)( int mia ) ) { } is void more(int (*function)()); Where did "mia" go? P.S. I contacted Manx about 6…
The following examples illustrate some of the bugs I've encountered with 5.0a to date. Bug 1: 5.0a treats 0.0 as a char in the presence of float prototypes. Example: void foo( float null ) { } main(void) { foo( 0.0 ) ; } Aztec C Version 5.0a Jan 9 1990…
I have tried Manx tech support in the past with *ABSOLUTELY* no good results. Examples have been posted on this forum.
The following examples illustrate some of the bugs I've encountered with 5.0a to date. Bug 1: 5.0a treats 0.0 as a char in the presence of float prototypes. Example: void foo( float null ) { } main(void) { foo( 0.0 ) ; } Aztec C Version 5.0a Jan 9 1990…
Me too :-). SDB is still very slow when displaying source from lengthy source modules though. Oh well.
Who me? A programming error. Nah, couldn't be :-). John, I know you're a big Manx advocate, citing product stability as its strong point. 5.0a has shaken my confidence. Examples will be posted to Mike in this forum. Stay tuned …
I'll re-read the relevant information Mike. However, K&R/ANSI function mixing should *NOT* result in code generation errors of the type I'm encountering. Yes, yes – examples will follow :-).
In the past I've been *VERY* disappointed with Manx technical support. I'm glad to see that Manx is finally (at least I hope so) trying to correct this. I'll post examples very soon.
#90184-
#How d'ya like yer Manx?
Message #90286
Dave – Since I've gone through all the trouble to install 5.0a, I'm trying to stick with it. I'd probably be using Lattice right now, except that I left all my Lattice documentation back home – I'm on a temporary assignment away from home right now. If 5.0a bombs out…
No, didn't read that particular read.me file. Too bad about doubles. It seems that 5.0a may be buggy for awhile; too many changes have occurred – default int sizes have switched and now the compiler is "ANSI conformant". I just wish the 5.0a release was a bit more stable. I'm…
I'm experiencing trouble with floats also. Prototypes don't always work with floats. Constants are sometimes coerced to char in the presence of prototypes. I finally gave up and am using double. This is working (for now).
More Manx Woes
Message #89568
ARGHHH! More problems with 5.0a. The -bd option seems to wipe out the statement following its invocation. Took me 3 hours to track this @?!!!ing bug down. Also, the 5.0a setdat utility no longer works. Finally, sizeof() may be broken. Anyone else out there encountering similar problems?
Manx 5.0a – strike 1
Message #89480
Anyone out there encountering problems with Manx 5.0a? I can't seem to get function prototypes to work. Manx generates faulty prototypes when functions are passed pointers to arrays, and needlessly generates warnings for seemingly valid prototypes. I've always thought that Manx's strong point was an error-free compiler. My experience with…
#77413-
Manx 5.0 C?
Message #77691
Jim, Where did you get your Arexx scripts for CED? Mumble, mumble, Manx 5.0, mumble mumble 🙂 Dave @OTG
Groan! 🙂 Dave @OTG
Geo, No sexism intended. Dave @OTG
Use the RM Function to read this message. The following DLs need attention: 2 8 9
Um, but then again I picked up the 3 character indent habit from ed. Can't teach an old dog … 🙂 Dave @OTG
I can hardly wait. I think I'll name the segments, grr, argh, and ?#*!!! (well, maybe not ?#!!!) 🙂 Dave @OTG
Ah, right now you don't foresee the need to port. But who knows – 5, 10 years from now you might look back and say, "Gee. Wish I'd written that program in a portable fashion so that it would run on C= new Superwhatever computer." Programmers who write portably, are…
I haven't had time to really evaluate LSE. On the surface LSE seems ok, but my editor of choice at the moment is probably a heck of a lot better. Believe it or not, some developers still use ed! Once an editor is learned, there is a tremendous disincentive to…
Maybe you don't need portability. Portability is a design decision. I strive to maintain portability so that I can pick the best compiler to work with, can move my code to other systems, and in the event that my compiler vendor of choice goes down the tubes. Dave @OTG
Bob, On the otherhand, lc seems to insist on breaking stuff down into an excessive number of segments. If your program is small enough, you can get around this with SMALLDATA and SMALLCODE. I've got a 150K program which takes about 6 seconds to load from ram:! Breaking code into…
Brian, I am refering to Manx's make utility not understanding c.o: default rules across files. You can work around this shortcomming, but you shouldn't have to. Dave @OTG
I'm not sure of its orgin, but 'foo' is used to mean "any program" or "any function". Dave @OTG
Don, I hate it when lines end up longer than will fit on my 80-column display. Using only 3 spaces alleviates most of the problems. Dave @OTG (An old ed habit? :-))
The same version you've probably got. Max's make cannot understand dependancy rules that span directories – a sin I find difficult to forgive. Dave @OTG
Brian, I was comparing Manx's make to Lattice's lmk. Manx's make is a semi-functional utility 🙂 Dave @OTG
Larry, You could also code the beginning and end in asembly, and have your assembly routine call a C function. If you need portable code, this is the way to do it. Dave @OTG
Brian, You may be able to understand your ILAC, but heaven forbid that you have to move your code to another compiler. Ben is largely correct. ILAC serves relatively little purpose in production code. Dave @OTG
Nope, it was the fact that you're braces aren't on a line all by themselves 🙂 Dave @OTG
Yup, you get a wierd software bug tracking number. Lattice (supposedly) notifies you when they fix the bug if you're the first to report it. Dave @OTG
John, This is Dave *not* Ben. What's wrong with make? Try "make directory:file" for example. And if you get that to work, then try "make directory:file.o", and if you figure out how to get that to work, finally have make follow dependancy rules that work across different directories. Manx's make…
Ben, The fact of the matter is this. I have yet, in all my work, run into exactly one bug with Manx. With Lattice I've found half a dozen. If I *wanted* to find more bugs in Lattice, I could. Just pick any feature that was recently introduced and start…
Page 1 of 3