Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!mephisto!mcnc!rti!mozart!walker From: walker@unx.sas.com (Doug Walker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Long #defines (Re: Lattice/SAS C 5.10 HERE!) Message-ID: <1990Aug30.184651.12687@unx.sas.com> Date: 30 Aug 90 18:46:51 GMT References: <1990Aug24.060138.2233@ariel.unm.edu> <1990Aug24.174645.15969@cs.umn.edu> <1990Aug27.081810.14126@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Organization: SAS Institute Inc. Lines: 28 This is getting out of hand. I wish our news feed wasn't so far behind the rest of the net or this might have been resolved before it got so far. Mr. Dolan, I'm sorry you have had a bad experience with the compiler bug you mentioned. However, I don't think it is justified to disparage the professionalism of the entire Lattice C product and its developers based on the presence of a single bug, which, while it SHOULD have been caught, will not be noticed by 99% of all Lattice C customers. The compiler had a bug. We fixed it as soon as possible - in fact, in the 5.05 maintenance release, which is a free upgrade from 5.04. The fix caused an error message to be printed and exited cleanly. In the next large release, 5.10, we put in an option to allow it to compile, by specifying a larger preprocessor buffer. The only criticism you can have on our handling of this matter is the fact that the bug was in there in the first place. I ask your forgiveness in this matter, bearing in mind the difficulty (impossibility?) of producing major products totally bug-free. >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