Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:16421 comp.sys.amiga.tech:83 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!agate!eris!mwm From: mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: code differences between manx and lattice Message-ID: <7873@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 21 Mar 88 20:03:05 GMT References: <9457@sunybcs.UUCP> Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 73 Keywords: a lexicl analyser to make them "interchangable" In article <9457@sunybcs.UUCP> ugmiker@sunybcs.UUCP (Michael Reilly) writes: < What I wanted to know, is how different is the code needed Manx, it's goin from Lattice X.Y -> Manx Z.W. Since code that worked with one version of a compiler may not work with another, this also changes from release to release of each compiler. On the other hand, things aren't as bleak as I make them appear. Carefully written code can be ported from one compiler to the other without to much trouble. Mostly you have to tweak in/out the "#include ", and prototypes. What's left is library calls. Having access to the other compiler manual makes it simple to figure out exactly what's going on if it's not clear from context. Providing the routines as a global macro or a function somewhere is then straightforward. Now, all you have to do is write a program that takes "random-piece-of-crappy-code-from-the-net" and turns it into carefully written code :-). That's harder, but more worthwhile...