Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Switch to Lattice 5.x?
Message-ID: <5909@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 6 Feb 89 22:20:06 GMT
References: <937@io.UUCP>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Distribution: na
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 30

In article <937@io.UUCP> carlos (Carlos Smith x4433) writes:
>I need the maximum speed possible for the project I am working on. Are
>Lattice's claims of dramtically higher performance true? It would be worth
>it to switch if it is indeed 50% faster than Manx on compute intensive code.

	The performance is much higher than before.  I recompiled Moria,
about 1 Meg of C, and cut the executable by > 20% in size.  You can do better
with other programs (Moria is generic, but often ugly, C translated from
Pascal).

>So, has anyone out there switched and ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED a dramatic
>improvement in the performance of their code? Do you find that compile time
>compares favorable with Manx? Does the floating point support seem robust?
>Anyone using the in-line floating point support? And, is the compiler stable,
>that is, pretty bug-free. I have heard the support is good, but I would prefer
>to not have to use it!

	The 5.02 patches were just released, and are being sent to all
registered owners.  The improvement is fairly dramatic, far more so if you
are using an '020/'030 or '881/'882.

>Thanks for any information. As any professional programmer knows, productvity
>is everything, and that means using the best tools available. So, is Lattice 
>now enough better to be worth the switch?

	In my mind, yes.  Disclaimer: I beta-tested for Lattice, and have 
rarely used Manx.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup