Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!mcnc!rti!mozart!walker From: walker@unx.sas.com (Doug Walker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Lattice/SAS C 5.10 HERE! Message-ID: <1990Aug30.171029.10694@unx.sas.com> Date: 30 Aug 90 17:10:29 GMT References: <14874@shlump.nac.dec.com> <1990Aug26.225427.4594@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Organization: SAS Institute Inc. Lines: 51 In article <1990Aug26.225427.4594@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >Heavens, if multiple line #defines are "broken", then most of Unix code >is garbage; the backslash line continuation is there for a purpose. The previous poster's comments were definately out of order; there is absolutely nothing wrong with multiple-line #defines. The 5.04 lc1 did have a limitation of (I believe) 3000 bytes in a single preprocessor macro definition. You encountered a bug when you exceeded a compiler limit. This should have produced an error message and terminated compilation. It instead gurued your machine. The bug was fixed in 5.05 in that it no longer gurued the machine. It was fixed in 5.10 such that you can, by specifying a preprocessor buffer size large enough, successfully compile the code. The 5.04 lc1b also has a larger buffer, which might allow you to compile with 5.04. >More important, is not whether my code is pretty or not, but whether >Lattice C is bulletproof or not. Any large programming project has bugs. SAS Institute is committed to fixing them, and we have done so in this case. >each gracefully, mine among them. Trashing the system on any input is the >compiler writer's error, and blaming it on the user is looking away from >the problem. I would like to point out that no one from SAS Institute blamed this on your code. I agree that this was a compiler bug. Compiler bugs that guru the system are quite rare and we give them the highest possible priority. >We rotten programmers are a much bigger market than the hypercompetent, >and Lattice should target their compiler for our needs, not theirs. This in no way reflects on SAS's target market. A bug can creep in anywhere, and in this case did. I suggest that if you choose not to upgrade to the 5.10 release that you at least upgrade to the FREE 5.05 patch release to get rid of the guru. You can also try compiling with lc1b instead of lc1, which has a bigger preprocessor buffer and might compile the file in 5.04. >Kent, the man from xanth. > ***** =*|_o_o|\\=====Doug Walker, Software Distiller====== BBS: (919)460-7430 = *|. o.| || | o |// For all you do, this bug's for you! ====== usenet: ...mcnc!rti!sas!walker plink: dwalker bix: djwalker