Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!katerina!c164-dj
From: c164-dj@katerina.uucp (Dan Filner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Compilers
Summary: Lattice vs. Aztec
Message-ID: <20359@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 6 Dec 89 04:14:18 GMT
References: <34886@spock.uucp> <4016@vax1.tcd.ie>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: c164-dj@katerina.UUCP (Dan Filner)
Organization: Lucasfilm Games Division
Lines: 37
Keywords:

As a developer recently transformed from MANX to LATTICE territory..
(My two bits):

In article <4016@vax1.tcd.ie> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes:
>- Manx has an assembler phase and the assembler is better for stand-alone use
>than anything else I've seen other than ArgAsm. Lattice has no assembler phase
>but still manages to take longer to compile.
>
Lattice has an assembler included but it lacks some important directives.
label reg Rn, for instance.

>
>- Usually Manx generates more compact code, Lattice generates slightly faster
>code.

From my one-big-project-on-the-amiga experience :
The game, developed in Microsoft C/IBM, ported to Manx Amiga, then 
only recently recompiled under Lattice Amiga, ran about 126K under
Manx - but only 85K under Lattice 5.04.
(It didn't work right away but was fixable)

>I myself use Manx 3.6 mainly on the grounds of the compiler being more compact
>and faster, but I'm thinking of switching to Lattice C because of the full ANSI
>compliance and the standard object file format. Of course, I'd still use the
>Aztec UNIX utilities.
>
I was using Manx because it existed identically on the ST and Amiga
(twin port targets for a graphic adventure) but have switched to
Lattice for smaller executables. Of course, I still use the Aztec UNIX
utilities.

--------------------
I have no other interest in either Manx or Lattice than as a comsumer.
--------------------
Dan Filner
Contracting Developer for the ST and Amiga
no permanent email-address