Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!rusty
From: rusty@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Xt and SparcStation 1
Message-ID: <RUSTY.89Oct20104148@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 89 17:41:48 GMT
References: <8910191235.AA08289@orzo.ndl.com>
	<8910192213.AA02401@kanga.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: /garnet_a/rusty/.organization
Lines: 23
In-reply-to: jim@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU's message of 19 Oct 89 22:13:17 GMT

In article <8910192213.AA02401@kanga.lcs.mit.edu> jim@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:

   From: jim@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU
   Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
   Subject: Re: Xt and SparcStation 1
   Date: 19 Oct 89 22:13:17 GMT
   Organization: X Consortium, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science

       Has anyone been successful in getting the Xt toolkit up and running on
       a SparcStation?  I've run into a problem where the optimizer seems to
       be generating bogus code.  By compiling it debuggable, I can get around
       the initial problem which is in ParseRepeat,

   The problem rears its ugly head in all of the procedures that return a
   parameter that was never referenced.  Instead of returning the string,
   the compiler seems to be returning whatever what the last value computed.

What about using gcc?  Does it exhibit the same problem?
--

--------------------------------------
	rusty c. wright
	rusty@violet.berkeley.edu ucbvax!violet!rusty