Lattice Flame
10 messages in this thread
I didn't use GO, and the K+R and ANSI points were just sidepoints. Either
way the compiler was in the wrong because the problem was in the handling
of case statements and if statements. It just can't handle it. Too bad
for Lattice but its simple, the Amiga C compiler should hit the road and
don't come back!
Scott Litvinoff
Scott,
I know of NO reported problems in the area you are refering to, and I'm
sure Lattice would have been avalanched with reports if there were really
major problems in standard C statement code generation.
— Mike Roth
Mike,
Just because you have no knowledge of such a problem does not mean
one does not exist. Out of the 50,000 or so Amiga programmers out there,
how many do you think there are that have tried using such deeply nested
logic. And then how many do you think decide to spend the $5 in phone
calls to find out what they already know.
Scott Litvinoff
Scott,
And what makes you think that with such deeply nested constructs that
you don't possibly have a bug in your code. With the number of people
using the Lattice compiler for complex work (including compiling the
Lattice compiler) I'd be VERY surprised if the type of bug you mention is
in there, or is a very special case situation if it is.
Instead of complaining about all of the code generation problems,
perhaps you should send sample code to SAS so that they can try to pinpoint
the problem and fix it if it really is a code generation bug.
— Mike Roth
Mike,
The way I know that it's not a bug in my code is that that part of
the program works fine on the IBM platform when compiled by Turbo C. But
thank you, I think I will send it to SAS along with a nice big nastygram.
Scott
Scott, it might make you feel good to send a nastygram – but I seriously
doubt that it will get the results you desire! As time goes by, you will
learn that it always pays to be nice to people, and especially so if you
need them to do something. 🙂
……Betty
Scott:
As the oldest, living member of the Forum, 😎 I would counsel you to
follow the "wiles of the woman." hee-hee. You have every right to assume
the other guy, in fact, has screwed up. But, put yourself in the shoes of
this vile and miserable wretch. Permit him to atone for his misdeeds
without too much loss of face, and he will scramble to do so. It's human
nature. Yell loudly, and he will surely slither away into the night. This
is the time for diplomacy and guile. 😎 Oooo. I like that…. guile.
Yeah. Lotsa guile. 😎
Regards Tom
Tom
Thanx for the advice. Think I can get the vile and miserable
wretch to give me my money back?
Friendlily (is that a word <grin> ),
Scott
Scott:
Only then would he *literally* be a vile and miserable wretch. <grin>.
The fact you caught some typo "deserves" another anecdote. Last year, I
audited a course in algorithms at Albright College, here in town. One
evening there was a message from the instructor in my VAX mailbox. He
advised me that I was the first person he ever chanced upon who properly
spelled "Dijkstra", as in the Dijkstra algorithm, in the same sentence that
had flubbed the word, "bubble", as in bubble sort. He thought that was
funny as h…. Very much the wise guy, obviously. 😎
BTW and IMHO, they will get this taken care of to your satisfaction. I
have owned both brands of compiler from the year one until versions 5.0,
when it became a little salty to have both around just for reference. I
normally muck around with the Aztec for reasons of convenience and because
most available code *I* am interested in studying was written with the
Aztec 3.6. Also, it served me as an assembly language study aid. Both
outfits were slow but solid supporters. I must admit, I'm not blind to the
number of revisions Lattice put out since their 5.0 was released, and I
wouldn't like that either were I in your mocassins.
Regards Tom
Tom
Thanks for being sympathetic about my situation. I had been
beginning to think that everybody thought the Lattice compiler was the
end-all be-all compiler. So, which do you think is better, the latest
revision of Aztec or Lattice 5.0.4? THANX
Scott