🚀 go-pugleaf

At 05:48 on 3/7/90 lah@raybed2.ray.com (LANCE HOLMES) writes:

> I just got my update to Aztec manx C and thought I would try it out.
> I always find it interesting to recompile a program when I get the source
> to see if first I can in fact recompile it and also to see if I get a 
> different size file for the executable.  So I tried to recompile
> MicroEmacs 3.10.

That's one of the first things I did, too.  Like you, I changed the makefile,
made a couple of other minor changes, and...

> The next problem the compiler  had was with a statement in the  module
> input.c .  It said that the statement was to complex and that I should
> simplify it and recompile.  Well I'm not and expert but I have a good
> understanding of C and couldn't see where the statement was all that
> complicated.

Yeah.  The first place this happens is around line 360, in the function
comp_command().  The 'complex' code looks like:

...
      if (matchflag) {
        /* if this is the first match, simply record it */
        if (match == NULL) {
          match = bp;
          name[*cpos] = bp->n_name[*cpos];
        } else {
          /* if there's a difference, stop here */
          if (name[*cpos] != bp->n_name[*cpos])
            return;
        }
      }
...

> I gave up after that error [...]

Ah, casting *cpos to char seems to do the trick, but I can't see why the
compiler complained in the first place.  Try:

...
      if (matchflag) {
        /* if this is the first match, simply record it */
        if (match == NULL) {
          match = bp;
          name[(char)*cpos] = bp->n_name[(char)*cpos];
        } else {
          /* if there's a difference, stop here */
          if (name[(char)*cpos] != bp->n_name[(char)*cpos])
            return;
        }
      }
...

> [...] and feel that I going to hold on to version
> 3.6 of the Manx C compiler and docs for a while seeing how there does
> seem to be a variety of differences.

Well, there've been quite a number of Manx 5.0A bug reports on the net
lately (er, but not as many as Lattice has attracted, it seems to me :) ).
But I, too, am keeping the 3.6a package around.  Wanna *really* see some
fireworks?  Try compiling VT100 2.9A with 5.0.  Whew!

Anyway, I *did* get emacs 3.10 going, and after optimization it even shrunk
a few K.  Seems at least as solid as it was under 3.6a...

$ list c:emacs
emacs                     105376 ----rwed 30-Jan-90 18:45:44  

> Lance Holmes

Rick Plavnicky
{...}!sun!cup.portal.com!plav
"I've got a bunch of bananas, and a bottle of bleach!"