Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tektronix!reed!percival!littlei!foobar!bishop From: bishop@foobar.hf.intel.com (Brian Bishop) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Beating XENIX ld into submission (was Re: Elm volunteers) Message-ID: <168@foobar.hf.intel.com> Date: 13 Jun 88 15:21:54 GMT References: <1093@bellboy.UUCP> <351@vector.UUCP> Sender: news@foobar.hf.intel.com Reply-To: bishop@foobar.UUCP (Brian Bishop) Organization: - Intel Corp - Hawthorne Farms - Hillsboro, OR - Lines: 16 In article <351@vector.UUCP> chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >BTW, has anybody beaten the 286 XENIX ld into submission and gotten a >reasonable elm 2.0 executable? There has been some very nasty flailing >going down here... ld? How about cc? I get "expression too complicated" in elm.c (845) and screen.c (305). It's those silly nested ?:'s in sprintf's that Dave seems so fond of (actually, they are cute; just more hate for Microsoft). I know I can split them up, but I would rather not. I'm using Intel XENIX 286 R3.5 with 2 MB of memory in an Intel 310/286. -- Brian Lloyd Bishop !foobar!bishop WB7BSF, Cessna 150 N5513G bishop@foobar<.hf.intel.com|.uucp> Multibus II CPU Dev., Intel Corp. "Networks: can't live with them 1 503 696 7699 Hillsboro OR and you can't live without them."