NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/programm/17778

Text File | 1992-12-24 | 3.3 KB | 77 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!walker
From: [e-mail] (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Advice to SAS/C 5.10b users
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:02:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: twix.unx.sas.com
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 63


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Navas) writes:
|> Yes, I would say there were quite a few problems.  But I -don't- get enforcer
|> hits from the compiler/optimizer.  The darned thing -still- biffs the
|> FindTask(NULL)->ln_Name field, but it doesn't get enforcer hits.  And that's
|> a big plus for me....

What the heck does that mean?  Is that another "bug report"?

BUG NUMBER: nnnn
DATE: 23DEC92
REPORTER: Navas, David

"The Darned Thing Still Biffs The FindTask(NULL)->ln_Name Field."

We'll get right on it.  It's obviously a bug in the biffing
algorithm, or possibly the peephole optibiffer.

|> >it's Your own fault. I can only recommend upgrading to 6.1 to every version 5
|>
|> I would too.  Just don't use utillib, M68881, or the optimizer for the next
|> few months.  That's okay, the base code creation is quite adequate.

Hundreds if not thousands of users are using the optimizer with no
complaints.  If I were any good at flaming, I'd be doing it right
now, but I'll settle for this:  If you can't come up with specific
examples right now, stop telling people not to use a major part of
our product.

I don't mind if people report bugs on the net to keep others from
running into them, but you are spreading gossip and malicious rumors.
If there is a bug you are running into, report it and we will fix it.
By all means, narrow it down and report it to the net, but don't
blast the whole thing because of one small part.  What if everyone
dropped AmigaDOS 3.0 when the first bug was found in it?

Now for a constructive suggestion: Try your case with OPTIMIZE but
also with NOOPTPEEP.  This will run the global optimizer but not
the peephole optimizer.  We have had virtually NO reported bugs
in the global optimizer, which is portable and runs on many other
systems, but the peephole optimizer is new for 6.0 and has had
its share.  Odds are good that NOOPTPEEP will fix the problem.

|> Very competitive with SAS/C 5.x, although I have yet to figure out how to
|> make VERY SMALL (yet WB supported) programs.  These seem about 200-400
|> bytes bigger than their 5.x equivalents.

Generate a linker map and take a look at what is getting linked in.
Compare it with the 5.10 linker map.  Use the MAPHUNK and MAPXREF
options - MAPHUNK tells you what gets linked in and how big it is,
MAPXREF lets you figure out who is pulling it in.

|> David C. Navas                        [e-mail]

--
  *****
=*|_o_o|\\=====Doug Walker, Software Distiller====== BBS: [phone] =
 *|. o.| ||                                          1200/2400/9600 Dual
  | o  |//     For all you do, this bug's for you!
  ======
usenet: [e-mail]                            bix: djwalker
Any opinions expressed are mine, not those of SAS Institute, Inc.