hamilton@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (10/26/86)
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu says: > Would someone please explain this to me? > > In article <2009@videovax.UUCP> stever@videovax.UUCP (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes: > >Lattice C is unable to cope with the construct [n+1]. > > >*************** > >*** 354,360 > >! FileItem[n].NextItem = &FileItem[n+1]; > >--- 354,361 ----- > >! nplus1 = n+1; > >! FileItem[n].NextItem = &FileItem[nplus1]; > > This looks like utter bilge to me. I'm currently running v2.2 WITHOUT > this patch (though it has the patches posted by DBW), and the menus > look exactly like the code makes me expect them to. Ditto for all the > things I've written that use this technic for setting up menus, etc. > > I'm using 3.03. If 3.04 Beta has this problem, then I pray that 1) it > gets fixed before the release, and 2) DBW won't pick up that > particular piece of uglyness just so the Beta software will work. this refers to a bug in lattice 3.02. an alternative solution, one i prefer, is to substitute "&FileItem[n] + 1" for "&FileItem[n+1]". wayne hamilton U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton ARPA: hamilton%uiucuxc@a.cs.uiuc.edu USMail: Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801 CSNET: hamilton%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet Phone: (217)333-8703 CIS: [73047,544] PLink: w hamilton
stever@videovax.UUCP (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (11/03/86)
In article <1502@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, Mike Meyer (mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU) writes: > In article <2009@videovax.UUCP> stever@videovax.UUCP (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) > writes: > >> Lattice C is unable to cope with the construct [n+1]. > >> *************** >> *** 354,360 >> ! FileItem[n].NextItem = &FileItem[n+1]; >> --- 354,361 ----- >> ! nplus1 = n+1; >> ! FileItem[n].NextItem = &FileItem[nplus1]; > > This looks like utter bilge to me. I'm currently running v2.2 WITHOUT > this patch (though it has the patches posted by DBW), and the menus > look exactly like the code makes me expect them to. Ditto for all the > things I've written that use this technic for setting up menus, etc. > > I'm using 3.03. If 3.04 Beta has this problem, then I pray that 1) it > gets fixed before the release, and 2) DBW won't pick up that > particular piece of uglyness just so the Beta software will work. I appreciate Dawn Banks (banks@viking.dec.com) writing to clarify the origin of the [n+1] fix for the vt100 emulator. I was about to dig out my hard copy of her original article and type in the relevent portions. In article <6132@decwrl.DEC.COM>, Dawn writes: > On the subject of the [n+1] occurances in DBW's VT-100 emulator, and how > well they sit with Lattice: > . . . > With Lattice 3.03, and VT-100 version 1, the occurances of [n+1] weren't > being compiled properly. Didn't come as any surprise, because this > "feature" was mentioned on the network soon after Lattice 3.03 hit the > streets. Changing the references to "m=n+1; foo[m]= ..." did, of course, > prevent the Guru visitations. > > Since then, starting with VT-100 version 2.0, we haven't seen this problem > reoccur, so I can only assume that it was some context sensitive bug in > Lattice. > > I can say with all certainty that it was happening with Lattice 3.03 (and > not 3.02), and with the original posting of the VT-100 emulator. > . . . Since the problem is with the current version of Lattice (V3.03), it seems wise to avoid it -- even if it is not presently manifesting itself. Surely, despite the "uglyness" of the fix, it will add little to the size of the executable. Steve Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever