Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Article #7582Re: Lattice vs. Aztec C what of it?
From: Peter da Silva
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 1990 12:55
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 1990 12:55
14 lines
1190 bytes
1190 bytes
In article <9012161351.42.13@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: > - Aztec in Version 5.0 is far from being reliable. That's really strange, because I have some programs that were giving me problems (memory trashing, etc) under 3.6a, and just recompiling them under 5.0d has gotten rid of the problem. Enforcer concurs: I was getting a lot of location 0 hits which went away in the 5.0d libraries. If you're following a linked list through location 0 that's a real good way to end up trashing memory, should it ever contain anything but 0. 5.0d has been completely reliable for me so far. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<7322@sugar.hackercorp.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peterReferences:
<9012161351.42.13@INSIDER>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Lattice vs. Aztec C what of it? Message-ID: <7322@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 19 Dec 90 12:55:15 GMT References: <9012161351.42.13@INSIDER> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Distribution: comp Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 14