Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!asuvax!hrc!force!covertr
From: covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Laser C and TOS 1.4
Summary: Is Mark Williams C Better??
Message-ID: <46436723.14a1f@force.UUCP>
Date: 16 Oct 89 15:15:32 GMT
References: <89283.234107SML108@PSUVM.BITNET> <8028@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: gte
Lines: 24

In article <8028@microsoft.UUCP>, w-darekm@microsoft.UUCP (Darek Mihocka) writes:
> Re: Laser C 2.0 and TOS 1.4
> 
> 10 in some cases. I'd prefer if they got out of the disk cache business and
> stuck to fixing up the compiler. I don't appreciate having a compiler generate
> incorrect code on me, which is what Laser C will do the odd time. I just
> stick to assembler for now while somebody writes a decent C compiler for
> the ST.
> 
> - Darek
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Darek Mihocka                   ST Xformer II              CIS: (out of order)

Darek, if you could send me the C code that breaks LASER C 2.1 I would like to
compile it with Mark Williams C 3.09. I could send you the results, and you could
determine if MWC is a better choice for you.

Also, a local frined has the Prospero C compiler, and I could get your sample compiled
on it as well.

So, please don't give up on C until you have tried MWC or Prospero.

Rich Covert