CompuServe Messages

It may be YOUR point, but since I started this thread on another point (which is that inline asm in in all cases bad news), it has little to do with my point, which you have yet to respond to in a way that shows inline asm to be a useful (let's say necessary) tool. I say anything you can do with inline asm you can do better (a LOT better) with a module in asm. Better being defined as faster executing, more portable, and cleaner. As for the compiler issue(s), I maintain that Lattice is the better compiler. Code written in it will NOT have inline asm in it. Ever. For a very simple reason – you can't do it. Code written in it may be made to conform to the ANSI proposal, a good thing in my opinion. It also has a debugger, not a good thing, but I can't change it, can I? A debugger is a crutch, I've believed that all along and have seen nothing that makes me want to change that opinion. Now both compilers have crutches. Phoo <shrug>. If Lattice were to add inline asm tomorrow, they would STILL be the better compiler – ANSI conformant, faster, smaller code, etc, etc. For that matter, you ever see the author of the Manx compiler around here? Tobbes (the Lattice author) comes by now and then, and is highly accessible. this is hardly a negative thing. Larry, should things turn completely around and Manx become the compiler of choice in ALL respects… inline asm would still be one of the filthyest, laziest, worthless, qriddled-with-serious-consequences, just plain bad _style_ things you can write into a C program. And _that_ is the point of this thread, for me. –Ben-