Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!indri!eta!nic.MR.NET!shamash!com50!mmm!manning
From: manning@mmm.UUCP (Arthur T. Manning)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os9
Subject: Re: C compiler 3.0 BUG with inline assembly!
Keywords: #asm, #endasm, crackerjack_compiler, unix-weenie, figure one
Message-ID: <1250@mmm.UUCP>
Date: 7 Apr 89 14:47:00 GMT
References: <1248@mmm.UUCP> <1003@mcrware.UUCP>
Reply-To: manning@mmm.UUCP (Arthur T. Manning)
Distribution: usa
Organization: 3M Engineering Systems & Technology Lab, St. Paul MN
Lines: 50

In article <1248@mmm.UUCP> kim@mcrware.UUCP (Kim Kempf) writes:
>In article <1248@mmm.UUCP> manning@mmm.UUCP (Arthur T. Manning) writes:
>>In the following code, the compiler concatenates the two SEPERATE sections
>>of assembly together as though they were all inside the if statement's
>>scope.  In the second case (with only a semicolon added) the compiler does
>>what it is expected to do.  Apparently "}" is not enough for the compiler
>>to know that the if{} has ended and to put the rest of the assembly code
>>outside the scope.
>>
>
>Here we go again....  The comments made here are absolutely untrue. 

What?  Are you saying that the bug (or idiosyncracy) does not exist?
I assure you, it is really there in the "superb" 3.0 compiler.  Am I
wrong to expect the compiler to work with inline assembly?


>This exact situation is described in T.F.M on page 3-3 paragraph 5 on
>that page headed "Interfacing to Assembly Language". 
 
 The manual reference suggests not to use #asm-#endasm on the same page,
but to use seperate modules instead.  Nowhere do I see the "exact"
situation described.

> The quality OS-9 C compiler and OS-9 itself is superb as can be attested
>to by a vast list of Microware customers.

Am I supposed to feel some sort of peer pressure?  Should I feel guilty
about complaining?

>The list of unsatisfied customers is trivial and a few of those haunt
>USENET.

Oh, so I've suddenly become a ghost by reporting a bug.  Call me
the "Micro-wraith" if you like.  

>
>----------------
>Kim Kempf, Microware Systems Corporation	{sun,uunet}!mcrware!kim

Does this person really represent Microware?  These are irresponsible
remarks to and about a customer - whether unsatisfied or not (I never said
I was unsatisfied).  Not only did this "representative" not address the
bug, they called me a trivial liar.  If Microware refuses to acknowledge
admittedly minor bugs, what do they do about other problems?

I anxiously await a response from someone else at Microware.-- 
Arthur T. Manning                                Phone: 612-733-4401
3M Center  518-1                                 FAX:   612-736-3122
St. Paul  MN  55144-1000   U.S.A.                Email: manning@mmm.uucp