Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!overload!dillon From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: DICE vs GCC Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 19:12:35 GMT References: <9104021420.AA10848@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> <1991Apr4.034920.16298@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Apr4.180217.19773@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1991Apr5.030228.28756@marlin.jcu.edu.au> Organization: Not an Organization Lines: 27 In article <1991Apr5.030228.28756@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >In article <1991Apr4.180217.19773@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tll@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Tal Lewis Lancaster) writes: >>cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >>.. >>>In article <9104021420.AA10848@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> tjhayko@THUNDER.LAKEHEADU.CA writes: >>>... >yes, 1.4M executable is bigger than my small 250k exec. but I'm working >to get it smaller not bigger :-) > > Because I am doing things that just can't be done with SAS or Aztec. > >Why not? For example, SAS/C and Manx have major limits on how large a preprocessor macro can be. Both DICE and GCC allow arbitrarily sized macros. There are other examples, but the preprocessor limitations are the most obvious. -Matt -- Matthew Dillon dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US 891 Regal Rd. uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon Berkeley, Ca. 94708 USA