Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!cbmvax!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccicpg!leo!harald From: harald@leo.UUCP ( Harald Milne) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: C Compiler bug? Summary: Gleep Message-ID: <3418@leo.UUCP> Date: 25 Oct 88 11:06:13 GMT Article-I.D.: leo.3418 References: <7880002@hpuamsa.UUCP>, Organization: CCI CPD (VLSI Development), Irvine CA Lines: 77 In article , bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: > FSJTM@ALASKA.BITNET (...Ar Henchou Kuzh...) writes: > > char *array[] = { "s1" "s2" }; > > Now, it seems obvious to me (and every other compiler I > > have used) that this is a syntax error. But the Manx compiler never even > > burps. What it does do is concat "s1" and "s2" into "s1s2" and put just the > > In ANSI c, putting two string literals next to one another like that > is supposed to be equivalent to a string literal that is the > concatenation of the two. So manx is correct by that standard... Don't take this personally, but after seeing a slew of these type of responses, I'm starting to reach the boiling point. *** Start of tirade *** If Manx choses to implement ANSI C features, then for heavens sake do all or nothing. What damm good is a half ass compiler that's neither here nor there. Either it's ANSI, or it's not. Saying this is legal in ANSI is a crock of you know what. Volatile is ANSI, see what MANX does with that! ARGH! (I know the manual says you can't do that, on some sentence on some frickin obscure page. ARGH!) Sorry, I just can't stand sh*t compilers. MANX can't even assemble it's own compiler output. ARGH! Does ANY other microcomputer user use MANX. Is the Amiga the only micro cursed with only two buggy compiler offerings? (Like C++ fresh from Lattice) I THINK IT'S TIME FOR A THIRD CHOICE!!! (Sounds like politics) Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. It's bad enough when I screw up, but compilers you spend a hefty portion on (like the MANX commercial package) and get THREATENED if you don't send your disks back for FUTURE UPDATES THAT NEVER EXIST! ARGH! How long has MANX sat on 3.6a bugs? Support? Crap, give me the source, I'll fix it myself thank you. Nothing like scanning the manual 14 times, just to find a single sentence that changes EVERYTHING! ARGH! Ok, I feel better now. But their phone is still busy, it's still 3.6a, and I gotta live with it till when? ARGH! For the money charged, you would thing MANX could at least afford ONE lousy set of upgrade disks, but nooooooooooo. Am I the only person that feels this way? Can't MANX support the only users of their junk before they fold from neglect? What good is a "commercial grade compiler" if it never gets fixed between releases? I can do what I do to fix unsupported UNIX compilers, write a filter that fixes the problems before the assembler pass. ARGH! I hate this!!! This moment of outrage is for me and everybody I try to help. Sorry. *** End of tirade, wimpering and sobbing softly now, argh ,wimper, snifle *** Does CBM use Greenhills? Hmmm. > > -Miles -- Work: Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI), Advanced Development Group (ADG) Irvine, CA (RISCy business!) UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!leo!harald