Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dicomed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!dicomed!boylan From: boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) Newsgroups: net.wanted,net.lang.c Subject: Re: C compiler for pdp-11 under RSX Message-ID: <197@dicomed.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 11:10:50 EDT Article-I.D.: dicomed.197 Posted: Mon Jun 4 11:10:50 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 04:29:20 EDT References: <2849@brl-vgr.ARPA> Organization: DICOMED Corp., Minneapolis Lines: 30 I have to do a 1984 and unsay something. In my original article on the Whitesmith C compiler I mentioned a problem we had with external declarations and compatiblity between pointers and arrays. Simply hordes of people have been sending me mail telling me that they aren't compatible and that I'm confused, some less politely than others. While I, and the person I worked with on the project, remember testing the code involved we cannot remember the specific problem. As we remember it, the code did work correctly on UNIX but generated a garbage assignment on RSX using the Whitesmith compiler. It is unfortunate that that document I ~r'ed in was written after the fact since the macro code was obvious correct for the pointer/array question. Since I cannot offer definitive proof that we weren't doing something goofy, I will unsay what I said, if you follow what I mean. Sorry for the confusion. As to my contention that the Whitesmith C compiler was somewhat lacking in optimization, it was clear from comparing the .s output that it didn't do any significant amount of optimization. If they used different csav/cret's for procedure calls we would never have noticed it for the obvious reason. -- Chris Boylan {mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylan