peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) (08/04/90)
I just received Lattice C within the last two weeks, but I found
something peculiar about it. Both the disks and the title bar
say v5.05, but when I actually compile a program, the text that
it initially spurts out says something like Lattice Compiler v5.04 ....
Did Lattice simply forget to update their little message, or was I
ripped off? I was hoping that some kind soul would take out their
version of 5.05 and check what message they get upon compiling.
Thanks for the help,
Joe Peck
peck@ral.rpi.edu
No cute sig flaming IBM's here ....
.... but probably next time. :)mike@eklektik.UUCP (/dev/tty000) (08/06/90)
In article <'57$??%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >Did Lattice simply forget to update their little message, or was I >ripped off? I was hoping that some kind soul would take out their >version of 5.05 and check what message they get upon compiling. No.. what the problem is, is that the output you see is from "lc". There were no changes made to "lc" in the .04 -> .05 upgrade. If you want to check to be sure, run "lc1b" It should come up with 5.05 If not, call lattice :) --- Mike Stilson - mike@eklektik.pgh.pa.us
eric@cbmvax.commodore.com (Eric Cotton) (08/06/90)
In article <'57$??%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >I just received Lattice C within the last two weeks, but I found >something peculiar about it. Both the disks and the title bar >say v5.05, but when I actually compile a program, the text that >it initially spurts out says something like Lattice Compiler v5.04 .... >Did Lattice simply forget to update their little message, or was I >ripped off? I was hoping that some kind soul would take out their >version of 5.05 and check what message they get upon compiling. The v5.04 message you saw was generated by LC (which in turn invokes LC1 and LC2). You'll probably find that LC1 and LC2, if executed independently, will report V5.05. -- Eric Cotton Commodore-Amiga (215) 431-9100 1200 Wilson Drive {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!eric West Chester, PA 19380 "I don't find this stuff amusing anymore."
peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) (08/07/90)
Well, I want to thank everyone who emailed me about the Lattice C
version numbers. Some of my email thank you's bounced ....
New question: How are sine and cosine functions implemented on the Amiga
with Lattice C?
Do they use look-up tables or a Taylor's series or what? I ask because I
need a fast routine with low accuracy. (No, I don't NEED low accuracy,
but it doesn't bother me too much! :) If it does use a series expansion,
I can happily write my own including only the first few terms. If it uses
a look-up table, it would be faster than anything I could write, and I
would be happy. So, if anyone knows, I would appreciate the info either
by net or email.
Thanks,
Joe Peck
peck@ral.rpi.eduguineau@wjg.enet.dec.com (08/07/90)
In article <13632@cbmvax.commodore.com>, eric@cbmvax.commodore.com (Eric Cotton) writes: |> From: eric@cbmvax.commodore.com (Eric Cotton) |> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga |> Subject: Re: Lattice C 5.05 |> Reply-To: eric@cbmvax (Eric Cotton) |> |> In article <'57$??%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: |> >I just received Lattice C within the last two weeks, but I found |> >something peculiar about it. Both the disks and the title bar |> >say v5.05, but when I actually compile a program, the text that |> >it initially spurts out says something like Lattice Compiler v5.04 .... |> >Did Lattice simply forget to update their little message, or was I |> >ripped off? I was hoping that some kind soul would take out their |> >version of 5.05 and check what message they get upon compiling. |> |> The v5.04 message you saw was generated by LC (which in turn invokes LC1 |> and LC2). You'll probably find that LC1 and LC2, if executed independently, |> will report V5.05. |> -- |> Eric Cotton |> Commodore-Amiga (215) 431-9100 |> 1200 Wilson Drive {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!eric |> West Chester, PA 19380 "I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." |> I just NewZAPed it to say 5.05 (for sanity reasons :-) -- W. John Guineau guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Marlboro MA. 01752
toebes@unx.sas.com (John Toebes) (08/08/90)
In article <*S9${2$@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >New question: How are sine and cosine functions implemented on the Amiga >with Lattice C? The library functions utilize the Cody and Waite methodology. It is reasonably fast and accurate. For performance of anything time critical where you know ahead of time the ones that you are going to be calcualting, it is always better to build a table of expected requests. /*---------------------All standard Disclaimers apply---------------------*/ /*----Working for but not officially representing SAS Institute Inc.------*/ /*----John A. Toebes, VIII usenet:toebes@dev.sas.com------*/ /*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/