🚀 go-pugleaf

In  <kisworo.660924569@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au> (11 Dec),
Marsudi Kisworo (kisworo@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au) writes:
> [....]   before I buy the LC++, I want to know whether
> it compiles ordinary LC source since I have written a lot
> of routines in C. Is there anybody in the netland who
> know this and have experience with this ? Also is there
> any problem arises when porting Lattice C code to
> Lattice C++ code ? Will LC++ generates C code like Unix C++ ?

I've had Lattice C++ for about three years, and it has mostly worked
fine for me.  (I actually used it to cross-develop a (large) project that
was finally compiled under Zortech on that machine we don't mention.
Virtually all of the few minor problems I had were due to (early) Zortech's
deficiencies, except for one place -- don't remember the circumstances
I'm afraid -- where the Lattice Cfront section generated bad C code!)

Lattice C++ IS basically a precompiler (Cfront) for their standard C
compiler.  It came with version 4 of that; I'm using 5.04 with no problems.
(I have 5.1 but haven't checked it with that yet.)  I don't see any
problem with importing standard C routines, except for the few intolerances
that C++ has (noted in Stroustrup I think); I'm not sure whether C++
accepts old style parameter declarations or not -- I think it does, with
a warning.  I always use the new convention these days.  I have on a few
occasions simply dropped in some plain C from somewhere else, without
troubles.

Cfront does of course generate plain C source, but this calls functions
from the C++ library (in addition to lc.lib) to do most of the special
tricks, so you can't easily drop thus source back into a plain C program.
It's perfectly all right to link in plain C object modules with C++, though.

My real worry about purchasing it at this stage would be its current
status.  Lattice never really did any updating, and now that SAS has
taken over C development, I have no idea what their plans are.  What
about it, SAS?
                                        -- Pete --

In article <1990Dec12.175455.13985@agate.berkeley.edu> pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes:
>My real worry about purchasing it at this stage would be its current
>status.  Lattice never really did any updating, and now that SAS has
>taken over C development, I have no idea what their plans are.  What
>about it, SAS?

SAS has said, on BIX, that they are working on an SAS C++ compiler.
This will be a C++ to 68000 code compiler, not a C++ to C translator
like the current Lattice product.  No word yet on release date, or
upgrade policies.  I don't need a C++ compiler *right* *now*, so I'm
going to wait.

disclaimer:  I just read about it, so that's all I know.

-Dan Riley (riley@theory.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley)
-Wilson Lab, Cornell University

In article <1990Dec15.192957.13441@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) writes:
>SAS has said, on BIX, that they are working on an SAS C++ compiler.
>This will be a C++ to 68000 code compiler, not a C++ to C translator
>like the current Lattice product.  No word yet on release date, or
>upgrade policies.  I don't need a C++ compiler *right* *now*, so I'm
>going to wait.

I've heard it may be ready by Fall '90, but there are many factors that
could easily make that sooner or later.  I should be getting a 3000 (or
maybe a 3500 or 4000 by then??? :) around then and this is one of my
planned purchases.

>disclaimer:  I just read about it, so that's all I know.

My disclaimer:  everything I said above is subject to change.
Especially the bit about me getting a 3000 if my fiance-then-wife
changes her mind.  ;)

>-Dan Riley (riley@theory.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley)
>-Wilson Lab, Cornell University
--
Chris Dailey   dailey@(frith.egr|cpsin.cps).msu.edu
BRD += DDR;
DDR = NULL;
num_countries --;

In article <1990Dec15.192957.13441@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) writes:

   SAS has said, on BIX, that they are working on an SAS C++ compiler.
   This will be a C++ to 68000 code compiler, not a C++ to C translator
   like the current Lattice product.  No word yet on release date, or
   upgrade policies.  I don't need a C++ compiler *right* *now*, so I'm
   going to wait.

   disclaimer:  I just read about it, so that's all I know.

Gee, this sounds an awful lot like the FSF g++ compiler.  Hopefully the
SAS one will be based on C++ 2.0.  Considering that an initial port
of gcc has been announced on the net, is anyone working on using that
to port g++?  Once gcc is working on the Amiga, it should not be too
hard to port g++, since it is just patches to gcc.  However, I don't
know how it works, but the extra runtime linking for C++ could present
some problems.  Just wondering.
--
Alan Bair                 SSDT (formerly SPS CAD)
Motorola, Inc.            Logic Simulation & Test
Austin, Texas             abair@turbinia.sps.mot.com