Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!csustan!polyslo!csun!acphssrw From: acphssrw@csun.UUCP (Stephen R. Walton) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Request for Compiler Info Message-ID: <846@csun.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 21:06:01 EST Article-I.D.: csun.846 Posted: Fri Oct 23 21:06:01 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Oct-87 03:34:08 EST References: <4443@zen.berkeley.edu> <31235@sun.uucp> <5540@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: acphssrw@csun.UUCP (Stephen R. Walton) Organization: California State University, Northridge Lines: 57 In article <5540@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer) writes: > >Uh, Lattice wins for .o files, Manx for the final executeable. Lattice >does a lot more work for you in the libraries. Manx is noticably >faster (Manx 3.4a vs Lattice 3.10). What does "lot more work" mean in this context? Just that the brain damaged Metacomco library format (really just a concatenation of object files) is more work than a real library? >[on the Manx utilities] Well, the Manx package comes with make, diff, grep, the debugger db (soon to be replaced by sdb, the symbolic/source debugger), the library program, and Z, the vi-like editor. This last may be worth it alone if you're a dyed-in-the wool vi'er. I know of no PA vi clones. >Scatter-loading is done by the DOS loader. You can turn it off to get >smaller binaries and faster startup time. Manx may produce binaries >in the "no scatter-load" format, but it'd surprise me. Be surprised. Manx produces non-scatter-loaded binaries by default, but provides options for 8K hunks and for each .o file in a separate hunk; this last is Lattice/alink's default, and probably fragments memory more than it makes good use of the fragments you've got. The Manx 3.4a linker overlays. It also will use AmigaDOS style .o files and libraries directly, no conversions needed (I've linked Manx files to the 1.2 Enhancer amiga.lib just fine). >I disagree with Chuck. The Lattice manuals are excellent, but the Manx >manuals have problems. I second all of Mike's complaints about the Manx docs. >The one thing you didn't ask about was bugs. There are far more bug >reports about Manx than about Lattice on the net. The Manx patch file which Jim Goodnow posted for 3.4a patched 3 count 'em 3 bugs for that compiler, plus a few in the libraries. 3.4b seems to be essentially bug free; at least, it passes the Thomas Plum veri- fication suite without troubles. >[favorable description of Lattice BBS support and bug fixes, then] >Someone wanna comment on how Manx does in this area? Not as well, I'm afraid. I finally cajoled Jim Goodnow into checking the Manx BBS regularly (on the East Coast, number in the front of the docs) which he does now. It is still only 1200 baud, I think. I have yet to get any mail announcing upgrades from Manx; I find out about them from Bix. Lattice and Manx both are well-represented there, incidentally. (Yes, Bix costs more than PC Pursuit, but you'd not spend more than a few cents a month reading only the Manx and/or Lattice groups.) Finally, I second Mike's comments about the free market. By year's end, or at the latest early next year, it may come down to the color of the documentation binders :-).