home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.programmer:17790 comp.sys.amiga.misc:19042
- Path: sparky!uunet!oracle!unrepliable!bounce
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer,comp.sys.amiga.misc
- From: dnavas@oracle.uucp (David Navas)
- Subject: Re: Advice to SAS/C 5.10b users
- Message-ID: <1992Dec24.190502.12582@oracle.us.oracle.com>
- Sender: usenet@oracle.us.oracle.com (Oracle News Poster)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: mailseq.us.oracle.com
- Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
- References: <BzDM7J.5nG@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> <1992Dec18.154954@rbg.informatik.th-darmstadt.de> <BzGqrA.4qI@unx.sas.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:05:02 GMT
- X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
- at Oracle Corporation. The opinions expressed are those
- of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.
- Lines: 19
-
- In article <BzGqrA.4qI@unx.sas.com> jamie@cdevil.unx.sas.com (James Cooper) writes:
- >FYI, in general, it should NEVER be necessary to use CODE=FAR -or- DATA=FAR,
-
- As long as you don't use SAS' included proto files that define the library
- bases without the __far keywords.
-
- :)
-
- >you should still be able to compile without the "xxx=FAR" switches, in which
- >case your code will be smaller and a bit faster than if you use the "xxx=FAR."
-
- Actually, I've found it often helps, and very rarely ends up hurting.
- These things seem to depend on what other options you are using....
-
- Of course, most of my modules are less than 8k (when optimized), so there's
- almost as much difference in the overhead of the startup than anything else....
-
- David C. Navas dnavas@oracle.com
- Working for, but not speaking on behalf of, Oracle Corp.
-