Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tll From: tll@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Tal Lewis Lancaster) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: SAS gripes (was New Eiffel-like OOP language) Message-ID: <1991Jun21.164424.3364@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Date: 21 Jun 91 16:44:24 GMT References: <1991Jun16.063222.1304@csis.dit.csiro.au> <1991Jun17.161534.323@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <15547@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Lines: 40 cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.161534.323@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tll@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Tal Lewis Lancaster) writes: >>You will save yourselves a lot of time by going with gcc or Matt's DICE. >>Sadly IMOO Lattice/SAS C with human coders in mind and not as intermediate >>object coders. SAS and Aztec can not handle calls to other functions >>greater than 32K in the same object file! Also beware of the limitations >>on SAS's macros. Also watch out for SAS's scanf() most un-UNIX like. >You could save yourself a lot of time by reading the documentation. The >Lattice compiler will certainly call other functions more then 32K away, >you just have to tell it that you don't want the short addressing mode >enabled. (which it is by default because another set of programmers >kept bitching about how big the code generated by the Lattice compiler >was because they didn't know you could turn _on_ short addressing, either >way, people who read the documentation don't seem to run into this stuff) This is not true. Lattice/SAS and Manx compilers can not support function calls more than 32K away in the same object file!!! If you attempt it under SAS you will be visited by a CXERR: 29. I have confirmed these limitations with both companies! >Also you should read the section on large macros, which describes the >limits and why you might want to use lc1b rather than lc1 if you have >large macros, and last but not least, if you normally programmed on a >SystemV UNIX machine you would not have been suprised at all by the >behaviour of scanf in the Lattice library. It is more accurate to say >that the Lattice scanf is most un-BSD like. Admittedly, I'm heavly influenced from BSD. However, I thought that their scanfs() were similar. I have always treated them as if they were in my code and they work okay on both BSD and SystemV. >-- >--Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems >uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM >These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. >"I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!" Tal Lancaster