Re: lattice/MANX bug when compiling large programs

Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech

Article #9950

Back to comp.sys.amiga.tech Previous Next

#9950

From: Ronald G Minnich
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 1988 15:52

10 lines
1163 bytes

In article <12521@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
>p. C-9: "the default is to use 32-bit absolute addressing, which allows 
>data hunks of virtually unlimited size..." Also the fact that both -b  and -r
>allow a numweric operand is not documented anywhere.
Oh yeah, neat isn't it. My theory is that
they wanted to do well on the benchmarks and so changed the sense
of the flags at the last minute. Or something. Sure ticked me 
off when i found this one. YOu have to look at man pages for lc1 and lc2
to know what is really happening. 
ron

Technical Details

Message-ID: <808@super.ORG>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!super!rminnich

References: <12499@oberon.USC.EDU> <6439@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <12521@oberon.USC.EDU>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!super!rminnich
From: rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: lattice/MANX bug when compiling large programs
Message-ID: <808@super.ORG>
Date: 3 Oct 88 15:52:26 GMT
References: <12499@oberon.USC.EDU> <6439@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <12521@oberon.USC.EDU>
Sender: uucp@super.ORG
Reply-To: rminnich@duper.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich)
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Lanham, MD
Lines: 10

Reply to Parent Message