🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12451@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
+In article <220@snll-arpagw.UUCP> paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci) writes:
+>I was compiling a sizable code and I got the following error from the
+>assembler (it got through the compiler fine :-)):
+>
+>	"Line 802 #Pc relative out of range, -130."
+>
+>As anybody seen anything like this before, or have any suggestions for
+>getting around this Manx problem?
+
+Yep, I've seen it a LOT with VERY LARGE C sources. The compiler generates
+the code with no errors reported, and then the assembler gives the above 
+message. It usually goes into a loop in which all labels after the first
+one flagged will all give the "pc out of range" message.  This is either
+a bug in the compiler (which generates bad code), or the assembler
+(which cannot process a  large source). By the way, in my case the
+.asm file output by the compiler was 600K (sources!).  So it wasn't a small
+program, though there is no reason the assembler should barf on it.  Since
+the MANX tech support has been dismal lately (Jim hasn't logged in on
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+BIX for months, and one can never get through the BBS or the tech support
+number), I'll probably just send the sources (it's a PD program) to MANX
+and hope they do something about it.  By the way, this is all with MANX latest
+release, 3.60b (after munging to work with REZ).
+
+-- Marco Papa 'Doc'

Talking about tech support, after MANY attempts I finally get through their
tech support number to report several bugs and the person on the other
end HANGS UP on me while I'm trying to explain to him the first bug.  And
THAT is what I pay for the commercial license?  Jim where are you?  If
Manx doesn't shape up they are going to start losing customers.  Personally
I'm going to write them a stern letter.


-- 
					-+= SAM =+-
"the best things in life are free"

				ARPA: paolucci@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov