ken@ukma.UUCP (Ken Kubota) (12/31/85)
The Lattice C compiler (version 1.0) for the Amiga seems to have
trouble handling complicated statements. As an extreme case, this
short rather questionable code causes a 'guru meditation' on a 512K
machine with 2 floppies under AmigaDOS 1.1.
main(){
int a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j;
if(a<0)if(b<0)if(c<0)if(d<0)if(e<0)if(f<0)if(g<0)if(h<0)if(i<0)if(j<0)a=0;
}
cbosgd!ukma!ken
ken@ukma.bitnethamilton@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (01/01/86)
>The Lattice C compiler (version 1.0) for the Amiga seems to have >trouble handling complicated statements. complicated? try: #undef AMIGA and watch the fireworks. wayne hamilton U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton ARPA: hamilton@uiucuxc.cso.uiuc.edu CSNET: hamilton%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet USMail: Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801 Phone: (217)333-8703
mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) (01/02/86)
In article <2440@ukma.UUCP> ken@ukma.UUCP (Ken Kubota) writes: >The Lattice C compiler (version 1.0) for the Amiga seems to have >trouble handling complicated statements. As an extreme case, this >short rather questionable code causes a 'guru meditation' on a 512K >machine with 2 floppies under AmigaDOS 1.1. > >main(){ >int a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j; >if(a<0)if(b<0)if(c<0)if(d<0)if(e<0)if(f<0)if(g<0)if(h<0)if(i<0)if(j<0)a=0; >} > >cbosgd!ukma!ken >ken@ukma.bitnet Lattice apparently recursively parses your if statement until it overflows the stack and dies. I had a similar problem with: if (...) else if (...) else if (...) ... else (a whole bunch of them). mike schwartz
bruceb@amiga.UUCP (Bruce Barrett) (01/03/86)
In article <2440@ukma.UUCP> ken@ukma.UUCP (Ken Kubota) writes: >The Lattice C compiler (version 1.0) for the Amiga seems to have >trouble handling complicated statements. >if(a<0)if(b<0)if(c<0)if(d<0)if(e<0)if(f<0)if(g<0)if(h<0)if(i<0)if(j<0)a=0; This type of "problem", I belive, is documented. The "problem" is that the default stack setting (4000bytes) is to small. I set the stack to 8000 (1> STACK 8000<RETURN>) and it compiled just fine. (I admit I tried this with V1.1 compiler, not 1.0 but I fully expect this to work for 1.0 also.) Please keep those cards, letters, and bug reports comming! --BruceB
dlm@iheds.UUCP (Daryl Monge) (01/03/86)
> I set the stack to > 8000 (1> STACK 8000<RETURN>) and it compiled just fine. Does this mean that stack expansion for processes on the amiga is not automatic as program execution progresses? Can someone in the know elaborate? Daryl Monge AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Ill ...!ihnp4!ihelp!dlm
fnf@well.UUCP (Fred Fish) (01/05/86)
In article <461@amiga.amiga.UUCP> bruceb@hunter.UUCP (Bruce Barrett) writes: > >This type of "problem", I belive, is documented. The "problem" is that >the default stack setting (4000bytes) is to small. I set the stack to I have "stack 20000" in my Startup-Sequence file and have not found too many things that won't compile or run. Is anybody working on a compiler that solves this stack problem transparently to the user. This is one of the few warts on an otherwise fine machine. I have a couple ideas how it could be done, but not real efficiently. Even having a child process allocate it's own stack at startup would be preferable. One basic problem the the current situation is that the parent process must know how much stack all the the children it intends to run are going to need. -- =============================================================================== Fred Fish (415) 644-1230 ext 242 ucbvax!unisoft!fnf well!fnf ===============================================================================