Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!bridge2!jarthur!uunet!cbmvax!jesup From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Manx/Lattice ENOUGH IS ENOUGH Message-ID: <22020@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 30 May 91 00:06:54 GMT References: <1991May26.022108.7901@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991May26.172439.2021@NCoast.ORG> Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 27 In article billc@cryo.UUCP (William J. Coldwell) writes: >'Cause SAS _WON'T_ support the '040 until their 6.0 version is available >sometime in the first half of 1992. (no ;-) either). 'Cause SAS is >generating bad code on some of the more important things that I am doing, >to which Manx works just fine. I can't wait 'till '92 - can you? '040 support?? There's only one user-level instruction that was added: Move16, and that one requires a NOP either before or after it in the currently available mask revs, if I remember right. Perhaps you mean FP that uses inline for instruction that are in the CPU, and calls subroutines directly for things that are emulated. That's all I can think of. Also, on what released '040 board would they test it? I take it 5.10a has a bug that's affecting you? I assume you've notified them - they're pretty good about support, and also provide good support on BIX (a number of their programmers are regulars there, and answer questions in their support conference). I don't mean by any of this that Manx is bad. I actually like the see-saw and interplay of ideas caused by the competition, and Dice should help in this too. -- Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion. "No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai