Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!eris!mwm
From: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Lattice-C 4.0, undocumented features
Message-ID: <5732@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 1-Nov-87 23:26:32 EST
Article-I.D.: jade.5732
Posted: Sun Nov  1 23:26:32 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Nov-87 22:38:35 EST
References: <789@rmi.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 22

In article <789@rmi.UUCP> kkaempf@rmi.UUCP (Klaus Kaempf) writes:
<The preprocessor symbol "LATTICE_C" should be defined the
<way Turbo C (gee, what's that?) does it (version number) in
<addition to those (now undocumented) symbols (who wrote the
<manual?).

Sorry, but the latest draft of the ANSI C standard (which is what
Lattice is working on conforming to) explicitly *forbids* preprocessor
symbols from being defined. One of the most major things done wrong,
and hopefully to be fixed (or at least a way around pointed out, like
_LATTICE_ or some such) in the next draft.

I can't tell but it looks like LATTICE_C is defined, but not to what
you want it to be defined to. In which case, Lattice did it wrong, and
apparently twice.

	<mike
--
[Our regularly scheduled .signature preempted.]		Mike Meyer
The Amiga 1000: Let's build _the_ hackers machine.	mwm@berkeley.edu
The Amiga 500: Let's build one as cheaply as possible!	ucbvax!mwm
The Amiga 2000: Let's build one inside an IBM PC!	mwm@ucbjade.BITNET