Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uflorida!haven!trantor.umd.edu!louie
From: louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Large arrays in Lattice V4.0
Message-ID: <3037@haven.umd.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 88 13:50:05 GMT
References: <652@helios.toronto.edu> <78840@sun.uucp>
Sender: news@haven.umd.edu
Reply-To: louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 30

In article <78840@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes:
>If you are using Lattice C :
>Use the -b0 (thats a zero) switch when compiling your program. The default
>in 4.0 (which was changed from 3.x) was to use 16 bit offsets for data
>addressing and that won't work for arrays > 65533 bytes in size. Whereas
>with -b0 you can address arrays up to two gigabytes.


I used this technique when I ported TeX (after it was run through WEB-to-C)
to the the Amiga.  I malloc() all of the large arrays.  Beware, however;
Lattice C, version 4.01 generate broken code when the array subscript is
an unsigned short.  It treats it as a signed short and feels obligated to
sign extend it to 32 bits before adding it to the index register.

Result?  Very broken behavior when the array subscript is greater than
32767.  I'm somewhat annoyed in that I spent 30 minutes on the phone (at
my expense) explaining the problem to them, registering a problem report, and
then just waiting.  I was told that since the new 5.0 release was due out
"soon" (this was 2 and one half months ago) there would be no patch.

Does anyone know if this was fixed?  Are customers with outstanding problem
reports supposted to hear from Lattice about this?  Do I have to pay $75.00
to get the new version?

Gee, the flame content seems a bit high; I didn't mean it to be.  I really
like the Lattice compiler; I only wish it had unix-like command options.


Louis A. Mamakos  WA3YMH    Internet: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU
University of Maryland, Computer Science Center - Systems Programming