Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!jdickson From: jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Lattice vs. Aztec C what of it? Message-ID: <1990Dec19.184443.8818@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> Date: 19 Dec 90 18:44:43 GMT References: <9012161351.42.13@INSIDER> <7322@sugar.hackercorp.com> Reply-To: jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) Distribution: comp Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Lines: 62 In article <7322@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <9012161351.42.13@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: >> - Aztec in Version 5.0 is far from being reliable. > >That's really strange, because I have some programs that were giving me >problems (memory trashing, etc) under 3.6a, and just recompiling them >under 5.0d has gotten rid of the problem. Enforcer concurs: I was getting >a lot of location 0 hits which went away in the 5.0d libraries. If you're >following a linked list through location 0 that's a real good way to end >up trashing memory, should it ever contain anything but 0. > >5.0d has been completely reliable for me so far. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' >. Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Lattice vs. Aztec C what of it? Summary: Expires: References: <9012161351.42.13@INSIDER> <7322@sugar.hackercorp.com> Sender: Reply-To: jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) Followup-To: Distribution: comp Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Keywords: I have Aztec 5.0d, but I still use 3.4a. I have never experienced any problems, except sometimes the compiler does not treat type casts cor- rectly. No big deal - just a pain in the a**. In article <7322@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <9012161351.42.13@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: >> - Aztec in Version 5.0 is far from being reliable. > I can believe this, because the compiler's flags for supposedly emulating K & R (3.6) is a real farce. >That's really strange, because I have some programs that were giving me >problems (memory trashing, etc) under 3.6a, and just recompiling them >under 5.0d has gotten rid of the problem. Aztec 5.0x is less flexible than earlier releases, because programs written must conform to the ANSI standard. This means it is harder to get away with incorrect/sloppy code. Don't mean to imply that Peter was guilty of this. I like the freedom of no ANSI, but it is imperative that you are familiar with the various sizes of objects. Many operations can be done in assembly language type ways. I wouldn't recommend 3.6 to novices, but for people who know 'C' and Amiga - ANSI conformance can be a real can of worms. I have used 3.4a and 3.6 since the winter of 1987. >Peter da Silva. `-_-' >. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff S. Dickson jdickson@zook.jpl.nasa.gov