🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7322@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>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>.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Lattice vs. Aztec C what of it?
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <9012161351.42.13@INSIDER> <7322@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Sender: 
Reply-To: jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: comp
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Keywords: 

	I have Aztec 5.0d, but I still use 3.4a. I have never experienced
any problems, except sometimes the compiler does not treat type casts cor-
rectly. No big deal - just a pain in the a**.

In article <7322@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <9012161351.42.13@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes:
>> - Aztec in Version 5.0 is far from being reliable.
>
	I can believe this, because the compiler's flags for supposedly
emulating K & R (3.6) is a real farce. 

>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.

	Aztec 5.0x is less flexible than earlier releases, because programs
written must conform to the ANSI standard. This means it is harder to get
away with incorrect/sloppy code. Don't mean to imply that Peter was guilty
of this.

	I like the freedom of no ANSI, but it is imperative that you are 
familiar with the various sizes of objects. Many operations can be done
in assembly language type ways. I wouldn't recommend 3.6 to novices, but
for people who know 'C' and Amiga - ANSI conformance can be a real can
of worms.

	I have used 3.4a and 3.6 since the winter of 1987.

>Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff S. Dickson				jdickson@zook.jpl.nasa.gov