🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5631@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk) (M i c h a e l ;-) writes:
>
>Jan (jan@neuroinformatik.ruhrunibochum.de) asks with regard to my earlier mailing
>about an compiler error:
>
>> According to the occam reference manual, the count can ba an expression, and 
>> an expression can certainly contain a function. Are you sure that your
>> function doesn't evaluate to a negative value at compile time. (Although
>> I'm not sure the occam compiler actually does the obvious thing and evalute
>> such a function at compile time...)
>
>well the function was the Min of 2 integers, neither of which (as far as the SC knows)
>is a compile-time constant (or known at compile time).
>
>
>
>I received this reply from Tony (arc1@uk.ac.ukc) which might shed a little light on
>the subject:
>
>> Michael,
>> Ah yes, I think there is a bug to do with return values on
>> the stack getting nobbled in FUNCTION calls.  Often having a
>> non-trivial expression (i.e. anything more complicated than
>> a varaible name or a constant) in the RETURN line of the
>> function will cause this, or cause corrupted data values.
>> This blew up one of our users.
>
>[NB: my function call only had a single INT value to be RETURNed]
>
>
>To finish this discussion off, I'd just like to point out that I'm amazed that I
>received the message COMPILER ERROR - please report which, to me, implies that it is
>the compiler (and thus not, necessarily, my code) that was in deep trouble. Doubly
>surprizing that the compiler failed in such a normal/straightforward piece of code.
>
>
>All the best, 
>Michael
>
>
>PS: Do many people still use occam? I was told recently by a systems person on a
>transputer machine that nobody uses occam anymore...