Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!gatech!hao!hull From: hull@hao.UCAR.EDU (Howard Hull) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Manx 3.4 bug and sc.c Message-ID: <664@hao.UCAR.EDU> Date: Sun, 17-May-87 10:25:38 EDT Article-I.D.: hao.664 Posted: Sun May 17 10:25:38 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 17-May-87 19:39:09 EDT References: <56@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu> Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 27 Summary: Are Manx arrays booby trapped? In article <56@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, mjw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Witbrock) writes: > anyway, it has a line > > short Cell[COUNT][COUNT]; > > in it (a global). This compiles, but is an undefined symbol at link time. Ar haw! Thank you velly much. I could hardly believe my eyes when BOTH 3.20a and 3.40a urped the _Cell tag without producing an executable. I said to myself "self, does this compiler think that a declaration with two sets of square brackets following the variable name is a *function*? GOOD LORD! But then, I thought, "maybe it just croaks like this when it runs out of space for the variable..." So I reduced the array size to 128 by 128 and it took it. So then, I thought "ok, maybe it can hack it with large data." No dice. "Maybe large code?" No dice. "Maybe large code and large data?" No dice. I then decided "well, what if it gets it as a one dimensional array?" So I started hacking it up, hoping to gain the additional capacity to do [n x m], where n x m = 2^k. You wouldn't believe what happened then. It mirrored about the x/y diagonal. Probably something I did wrong in the code, but really, linearizing an array is a pretty simple affair, like (x * y) + x instead of x,y. Then I ran out of time, you know, 2am Monday last. Oh well... Best Regards, Howard Hull [If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion... ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts] {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!hull for domain mailers: hull@hao.9 Fwit' b