Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!pepper!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Choosing an Amiga C Compiler
Message-ID: <39596@sun.uucp>
Date: 21 Jan 88 19:17:11 GMT
References: <945@aluxp.UUCP> <3168@cbmvax.UUCP> <4414@garfield.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 21

In article <4414@garfield.UUCP> john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes:
> Just one nit to pick here -- if you are a novice, the Manx error-checking
> is much friendlier and more helpful than that of Lattice (although it's been
> a few versions since I looked at Lattice).

This struck me as a bit odd, but maybe it is just me. The Lattice compiler
complains more often about bad code, things like a return value that doesn't
match the type of the function, functions that are used inconsistently, 
argument types that don't match the function declaration etc. Manx on the
other hand was very forgiving of such practices. Now personally, I prefer
Lattice complaining that I write bad code. Also in 4.0 Lattice spits out
the line where the error occurred and then puts a caret '^' under the point
of detection. Fortunately you can turn this feature off. I generally check
into all the warnings that Lattice turns out and put in casts where 
appropriate to prevent such messages. Generally, after I have done this 
these programs have a much better chance of passing lint.


--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.