Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watcgl!kdmoen
From: kdmoen@watcgl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Sumacc C compiler
Message-ID: <2283@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Date: Sun, 8-Nov-87 05:44:22 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2283
Posted: Sun Nov  8 05:44:22 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 18:48:54 EST
References: <7486@dartvax.UUCP> <7508@dartvax.UUCP> <21522@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 30
Keywords: C compiler gripe

oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes:
...concerning why the sumacc compiler is no good...
>The authors of the compiler seem to be unaware that on a Macintosh
>executable code can move while the program is running. Unlike all Macintosh
>compilers, they generate position _dependent_ code, and have a funky
>loader scheme to resolve non-relocatable references at program load
>time. Eventually, the code moves, and all that position dependent code
>points at never-neverland.

Sorry, but this sounds blatantly impossible.  If the code were to move
while the program is running, then *all of the return addresses and
function pointers on the stack would become invalid* and the program
would crash, regardless of what compiler was used to create the program.

Now, I can see that maybe desk accessories might move around,
*but not application programs*.

Still, I will second your opinion that Sumacc is "not recommended".
I abandoned Sumacc a while back for MPW, on the theory that it was not
worth my time to maintain Sumacc when Apple would maintain MPW for me.
Now, of course, I am deeply regretting the fact that I can no longer
run my programs through lint...

PS: Has anybody heard rumours about the forthcoming availability of Lint
for any Mac C compiler??
-- 
Doug Moen
University of Waterloo Computer Graphics Lab
UUCP:     {ihnp4,watmath}!watcgl!kdmoen
INTERNET: kdmoen@cgl.waterloo.edu