🚀 go-pugleaf

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>.

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.
>
>5.0d has been completely reliable for me so far.

I'd have to agree with Peter, at least as far as my experience with 5.0d
Aztec is concerned.  I have been using it for a personal project and
it's been fine for me. I use it under 2.0 with the standard 2.0 includes
and linking with the 2.0 amiga.lib.  No problems at all.  But then I'm
not using any of the math libraries, so ....

bj

>Peter da Silva.   `-_-'

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Brian Jackson  Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc.  GEnie: B.J. |
 | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com    or  ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj     |
 | "Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only better."    |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In article <1990Dec19.184443.8818@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) writes:
> 	I like the freedom of no ANSI,

Funny, I like the freedom of ANSI. It means I can finally QUIT WORRYING ABOUT
FUNCTION ARGUMENTS. God, I hate lint.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.

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

>5.0d has been completely reliable for me so far.

It hasn't for me, but I can believe I did something wrong.  Peter, did
you download the update or order the disks?  Have you tried building a
sharable library with 5.0d, specifically the example in the res_lib
directory of the 5.0a distribution?

Steve

In article <1990Dec20.231335.14446@csun.edu> swalton@solaria.csun.edu (Stephen Walton) writes:
>In article <7322@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>5.0d has been completely reliable for me so far.
>It hasn't for me, but I can believe I did something wrong.  Peter, did
>you download the update or order the disks?  Have you tried building a
>sharable library with 5.0d, specifically the example in the res_lib
>directory of the 5.0a distribution?

AHA! So some someone else *has* had this problem. If you optimise it
crashes and if you don't it hangs, right? This happens to me on both
the sample library and on rexxhost.library (haven't tried any others).
Have you reported this to Manx? Otherwise I'll definitely do it now. 

Jesper.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEnet: jep@mtiame.mtia.oz.au            UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!mtiame.oz!jep
[...] I had to leave out reality to keep the post clean and to the point.
            - jeremy@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeremy York) in rec.music.misc

I have been working a bit with amiga libraries and manx 5.0[a,d]
and have had little success so far.

When I used 5.0a I never managed to compile a library that worked unless I
added the optimizer flag (-so). This is a real pain because that made it
close to impossible to debug the libraries with sdb. I think the compiler
was generating 'link a5,?' when it shouldn't which was 'optimized' out
with the -so flag. Another 'feature' is that the function in the libraries
must be declared with prototypes and pragmas or else it won't find the
library base and possible other global data (It seems like the compiler
will 'magically' bind the library-base variable to a6 instead of just
allocating some stack space for the base variable).

I tried to recompile the libraries with 5.0d, which I got last week on
disk and managed to do some meditation. I copied the the res_lib from 5.0a
and compiled that with the same result.  I compiled the
'open/close/expunge' function with the '-a' flag an started to look at the
assembly code that the compiler had generated. I found out that the
compiler generates a 'move.l (sp)+,a4' when it shouldn't. It will trash a4
and it will trash the stack! The library worked after I removed these
lines.

These odities can be found when the functions are declared as library
functions, i.e. prototyped and pragmaed. I guess the compiler works great
when it compiles 'ordinary' functions, but it sure don't when it comes to
library functions.

CONCLUSION: Manx 5.0[a,d] are NOT stable enough to create amiga libraries.

HAS ANYBODY MANAGED TO COMPILE AN AMIGA LIBRARY WITH MANX 5.0D???????

(I guess I'm still hoping that somebody will tell me that I made a silly
misstake ;-)
--
##########################################################
#   Michael Jansson             |   \_/
#   Internet: mij@IDA.LIU.SE    |    V                   _|_
#   UUCP: uunet!liuida!mij      |    |    Absolut Software|
#   BITNET: mij@SELIUIDA        |   ~~~  

In article <1990Dec21.032913.8163@mtiame.mtia.oz>, jep@mtiame (Jesper
Peterson) writes that he's had sharable library problems as well.
There are (at least) two bugs in the code generated for a sharable
library with 5.0d and both have been reported to Manx.

The first is that if a sharable library function takes no arguments,
no call to geta4() is generated, but a4 is still popped off the stack.
The workaround is to give each of your functions an argument, even
if it isn't used.  I do something like:

void MyLibRoutine(int);
#pragma amicall(MyLibBase, 0x1e, MyLibRoutine(d0));
void MyLibRoutine(int x) {
...
}

which does the right thing even if x isn't looked at in MyLibRoutine.

The other I just found, and occurs only if optimization is turned on.
I have one case which trips it, but haven't got the bug fully
characterized.  I'd simply recommend not optimizing the actual entry
points into your library, but optimizing the lower-lying routines.
-------------------------------
Stephen Walton, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cal State Univ. Northridge
   I am srw@csun.edu no matter WHAT the stupid From: line says!

In article <1990Dec20.231335.14446@csun.edu> swalton@solaria.csun.edu (Stephen Walton) writes:
> It hasn't for me, but I can believe I did something wrong.  Peter, did
> you download the update or order the disks?

Ordered the disks.

> Have you tried building a
> sharable library with 5.0d, specifically the example in the res_lib
> directory of the 5.0a distribution?

No, I haven't done that. I've been in crunch mode on my real life job since
before I got my A3000, let alone 5.0d.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>5.0d has been completely reliable for me so far.

50.d has only given me one guru.. had something to do with
pre compiling the header files on the MXM.library

On the whole, it's quite a bit more reliable than the 5.0a 
I was using before.. especially in sdb.