Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pepper!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Switch to Lattice 5.x?
Message-ID: <88695@sun.uucp>
Date: 7 Feb 89 18:04:31 GMT
References: <937@io.UUCP> <5909@cbmvax.UUCP> <15200@oberon.USC.EDU>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 30

In article <5909@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
>	The 5.02 patches were just released, and are being sent to all
>registered owners.  

In article <15200@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) responds:
> Is this what LATTICE told you? Should we "registered" owners of Lattice 
> C 5.0 wait for the upgrade in the mail, or should we log on the BBS and 
> pick up the 5.02 patches?

Yes, this is what LATTICE told us on BIX.

Generally, I've got some mixed emotions on the whole 5.0 -> 5.02 deal here.
On the one hand, they responded rather quickly to the bugs, on the other
hand there were a few bugs that beta testing should have caught. Then
they put the updates on BIX (this is a better deal for some people) but
on the other hand they had essentially zip documentation to go with the
7 or 8 ARC files of fixes. Most use "Patch" (which is on the distribution
disks) but patch isn't documented in either manual or mentioned in the 
Master Index. It has really been hot and cold emotions here. I spent
three hours last night attempting to apply the fixes, doing so very 
carefully so that I would know that the correct modules had been fixed 
and that the fixed versions replaced the old versions. I'm still not
convinced I got it all right. Yes, it is a wonderful compiler, and
yes many of the fixes were appreciated, but gee, what a way to waste
an evening.


--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.