Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/13/84; site intelca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!intelca!cem
From: cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Amigaterm the fix revisited
Message-ID: <214@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Feb-86 12:03:40 EST
Article-I.D.: intelca.214
Posted: Tue Feb 18 12:03:40 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Feb-86 23:38:56 EST
References: <1294@caip.RUTGERS.EDU>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 41

> From: DICKSON, JEFF S. <jdickson@jpl-milvax.arpa>
> 
> 
> 	I just purchased Lattice's latest C compiler - release 3.03. My only
> grief with it is that I cannot get Amigaterm to run correctly. 
> 
> 	When the program is invoked, the Amiga issues a "Software Error - Task
> Held" message. After you click the cancel box the guru meditation box appears
> atop the screen and the system hangs.
> 

Ok folks one more time, (forgive me if everyone jumps up and shouts the 
answer) The new Lattice compiler (version 3.03B) does not correctly compile
statements that mix pointer and array arithmetic. Thus, if you use a pointer
to an array of menu items (like AmigaTerm) and try to reference them
as &Arrayname[n + 1] to get a pointer to array element n+1, you will get 
incorrect code and a GMN (Guru Mediation Number.) AmigaTerm uses this type 
of syntax in two places, one in the initialization of the Baud rate menu 
list, and once in the initialization of the options list. It is being used 
to create a linked list of menu pointers in the menu strip. 

To fix it, read through the code and look for one statement in each
init routine that is of the form &variablename[n + 1]. This is supposed
to return a pointer to element n+1 or array variablename, it doesn't.
change those two statements to &variablename[n]+1, which looks totally
incorrect to programmers in any language other than C, however the compiler
generates 'pointer arithmetic' code such that the end result that is 
returned can be interpreted as "pointer to array element 'n' plus the length
of one element, which equals a pointer to element n+1." which is indeed 
what the original statement intended. I have heard from Lattice that this
has been fixed in V3.04. 

Is this clear? When I get diff ported I could post a diff output file, but
by that time to version on Fred's disk set will be fixed, right Fred ?

--Chuck
-- 
                                            - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - - 
{ihnp4,fortune}!dual\                     All opinions expressed herein are my
        {qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem       own and not those of my employer, my
 {ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/                     friends, or my avocado plant. :-}