Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site kitty.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!sunybcs!kitty!peter From: peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lattice C for IBM Mainframes from SAS Message-ID: <262@kitty.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 10:35:12 EDT Article-I.D.: kitty.262 Posted: Wed Aug 7 10:35:12 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 23:52:25 EDT References: <1791@ecsvax.UUCP> <243@hsi.UUCP> <252@kitty.UUCP> <3432@utah-cs.UUCP> Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY Lines: 64 > >Me > Eric Brown Me :-> [I made a request for information. Eric responded with what looks like a flame] > >one that made a decent effort at implementing section 3. That was 6 months > >ago and that was the one I bought. > > You call 30 incompatible string functions, no math library, and a broken > setjmp.h implementing section 3???? At the time, Wizard was selling a > compiler that emulated a full System III library with MS-DOS extensions that > was at least as bug free as Lattice 2.1[34] (not sure which version was > current). I'm using Lattice 2.15. It supports the math library and the UNIX string functions. Setjmp works fine. I don't know what older versions are like, just what's available now. > >Also, I don't have any #ifdef LATTICE statements. I do have a couple > >of #ifdef IBMPC, but that's because the IBM-PC doesn't implement ioctl > >and stat. :-> How many macros do you use that extend over 1 line anyway? > > Well, you must never use realloc, since realloc is not implemented in Lattice No, I don't. Do I have to? > 2.15 and below. Furthermore, since Lattice doesn't support struct assignment, Neither does V7 UNIX 'C', which is the base defacto language definition. Since I'm currently using a slightly berkeleyised V7 I'm quite satisfied. > I end up with lots of multiline macros to fake the struct assignment. Why not just use pointers? I've never felt the need to assign structures, at least not if I can't add & multiply them as well (the only thing I like about ADA is that you can do this, with a little care). > Also, > Lattice apparently never heard of unsigned long, since Lattice barfs on it. So does K&R. > >Anyway, if uSoft 'C' is particularly UNIX-library-compatible I'd like to > >know about it. I'm always looking for anything to help my massive porting > >habit. > > As far as I can tell, Microsoft C is a port of their Xenix C compiler to > MS-DOS. Last time I looked Microsoft 'C' was a slightly modified version of Lattice 'C', which is why I asked the question. If it's Xenix 'C' that's more like it. > At least the library looks like a bunch of Xenix functions. > > > Happy with Wizard C, > > Eric C. Brown Beating out the fires, Peter da Silva