ng@pur-phy.UUCP (Nicholas J. Giordano) (11/17/86)
I am planning to purchase a C compiler, and I would greatly appreciate answers or comments to the following questions. I am not a developer; I only want it to be able to write programs for recreational use (for me and my kids), although I may also do some small scale crunching (physics type simulations). I am heavily leaning towards Manx, based on its superior compile/link/run times as compared to Lattice. My questions are: (1) Manx Developers versus Commercial versions. Is it worth it for someone like me to pay the extra money for the Commercial version? (2) Programs with large (usually) data segments. How is Manx for these applications. I have read a lot on the net about using Manx with 16 versus 32 bit ints. Does one use different libraries for the two cases, and if so, do they both come with the Developers package? (3) 1.2 compatibility. I spoke with Manx last week, and they said they expect to release the 1.2 compatible version in a "month or so". I would rather not wait that long if I don't have to. Can the current version be made compatible with 1.2 (I believe that I read that it can), and if so how, and are there any remaining bugs? What else will be in the next release? By the way, what version of Manx is the current one? (4) Floating point. The benchmarks I have seen give Manx a large edge in floating point execution speed (which for my small scale crunching would be important). There has been some discussion on the net about Manx handling floating point operations differently from Lattice (I believe FFP versus IEEE are the terms used). What exactly do these mean, especially concerning accuracy? Thanks for the answers these questions and any other comments on Manx versus Lattice which anyone may have. nick.
higgin@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Paul Higginbottom GUEST) (11/19/86)
In article <2118@pur-phy.UUCP> ng@pur-phy.UUCP (Giordano) writes: >I am planning to purchase a C compiler... >...I am heavily leaning towards Manx, based on its superior compile/link/run >times as compared to Lattice. > >My questions are: > >(1) Manx Developers versus Commercial versions. Is it worth it for someone >like me to pay the extra money for the Commercial version? I'm not sure about this, but I don't know if the Developer (a misnomer if ever I heard one) version comes with a debugger, or even "make". VERIFY THIS before buying - those two are pretty essential, not to mention a nice editor (z) if you're into "vi" style editing as opposed to "emacs" variants. I have the Commercial version and DON'T consider it to be filled with all kinds of things I don't need - I use almost all of it, so I personally would lean heavily in favor of the Commercial version. >(2) Programs with large (usually) data segments. How is Manx for these >applications. No problem. Manx supports different memory "models" and small data AND small code are not a problem usually for even those huge mungo programs in the public domain like Hack. The reason: small data means no more than 64K of INITIALIZED GLOBAL DATA - pretty damned unlikely! If you want to do float stuff[BIZILLIONS]; The compiler won't care because the storage won't be initialized with values (although the startup code automatically makes globals zero if they do not have an initial value). Small code means no more than 32K functions! ALSO p.d.u! >I have read a lot on the net about using Manx with 16 versus >32 bit ints. Does one use different libraries for the two cases, and if >so, do they both come with the Developers package? Yes, there are two different libraries to link with, and (a guess) I'm sure they must both come with the Developer version (but call Manx 1-800-221-0440). >(3) 1.2 compatibility. I spoke with Manx last week, and they said they >expect to release the 1.2 compatible version in a "month or so". I would >rather not wait that long if I don't have to. Can the current version >be made compatible with 1.2 (I believe that I read that it can), and if >so how, and are there any remaining bugs? "1.2 compatibility" means that those NEW routines in 1.2 are accessible through Manx's NEW link libraries (for the new version). Since 1.2 is compatible (from a programmer's point of view) with 1.1 you can CERTAINLY use the currently sold version to write programs under 1.2 - you just won't be able to access the new routines until you receive your FREE upgrade from Manx (so waiting for the new version is not worth it - in the interim you'll get yourself comfortable with the compiler and tools). Re: bugs - do you mean in 1.2 :-) or the "to be released in a month or so" version of Manx? The former - I've heard there is; the latter - compilers are never perfect but the guy who works in this one has worked incredibly hard to fix all known problems and it's a great piece of work. I'm writing applications which contain 60 source files, and produce executables of 60K+ as well as a run-time library and other tools with NO PROBLEMS. We've run into one or two glitches in the compiler, but the "to be released" version seems to fix these (I'm a Beta tester). >What else will be in the next release? The author has spent a lot of time improving the math (the first version [3.20] released only supported single precision math internally) which now supports single and double precision (MUCH faster than Lattice) using either Amiga's math or their own, AND it supports the 68881/010/020 chips. I have no idea how well this works though. The new release is basically an upgrade - better math, fixed bugs in the compiler, linker, assembler, etc, and support for 1.2 enhancements. >By the way, what version of Manx is the current one? 3.20 >(4) Floating point. The benchmarks I have seen give Manx a large edge in >floating point execution speed (which for my small scale crunching would >be important). There has been some discussion on the net about >Manx handling floating point operations differently from Lattice (I believe >FFP versus IEEE are the terms used). What exactly do these mean, especially >concerning accuracy? Read above. >Thanks for the answers these questions and any other comments on Manx versus >Lattice which anyone may have. > >nick. You're welcome, Paul. Disclaimer: I work for myself, and my opinions are my own.
quattro@convex.UUCP (11/22/86)
/* Written 11:05 am Nov 19, 1986 by higgin@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP in convex:comp.sys.amiga */ /* ---------- "Re: C compiler questions (Mostly Ma" ---------- */ In article <2118@pur-phy.UUCP> ng@pur-phy.UUCP (Giordano) writes: >I am planning to purchase a C compiler... >...I am heavily leaning towards Manx, based on its superior compile/link/run >times as compared to Lattice. > >My questions are: > >(1) Manx Developers versus Commercial versions. Is it worth it for someone >like me to pay the extra money for the Commercial version? >(2) Programs with large (usually) data segments. How is Manx for these >applications. The developer's version doesn't come with MAKE or VI (or several other UNIX type commands) but you can get these off of most BBS's for free. (I haven't seen a VI, but there are several EMACS running around). Why pay en extra $100 dollars for it. The developers version does come with a debugger.
hamilton@uiucuxc.UUCP (11/22/86)
> The developer's version doesn't come with MAKE or VI (or several other > UNIX type commands) but you can get these off of most BBS's for free. (I > haven't seen a VI, but there are several EMACS running around). Why pay en > extra $100 dollars for it. The developers version does come with a debugger. according to the manx ad in the latest (jan/feb) amigaworld, there are now 3 packages: "the Professional" (at ~$200), "the Developer" ($300), and "the Commercial" ($500). the developer package now includes the support utilities (make, diff, grep, etc) and the debugger. the extra $200 for the commercial package gets you library sources, 1 year of updates, and Z. (note that manx gives substantial discounts at the drop of a hat). also, if you buy direct from manx, you get a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. 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
hutch@sdcsvax.UUCP (11/23/86)
In article <62900001@convex> quattro@convex.UUCP writes: > The developer's version doesn't come with MAKE or VI (or several other >UNIX type commands) but you can get these off of most BBS's for free. (I >haven't seen a VI, but there are several EMACS running around). Why pay en >extra $100 dollars for it. The developers version does come with a debugger. If you got the developers version and did not get Z and Make, you got ripped. You get library maintenance programs too. I used it, no myth. Make works fine. Now this is the commercial package ~$400, but you get sources to the libraries also. Not that I look at them much, but it is nice to have Z (vi), and make. -- = Jim Hutchison UUCP: {dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!hutch ARPA: Hutch@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu "Only the relentless will be left when no one cares"
page@ulowell.UUCP (Bob Page) (11/29/86)
Unfortunately, the Aztec C compiler version 3.4 won't be out until
January, so you won't get the benefits of the reduced price until then.
>From what I understand, version 3.4 is still currently in beta test
mode, and the specifications are still subject to change.
John G. Atajdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) (12/01/86)
>Unfortunately, the Aztec C compiler version 3.4 won't be out until >January, so you won't get the benefits of the reduced price until then. >From what I understand, version 3.4 is still currently in beta test >mode, and the specifications are still subject to change. This is very disappointing. As part of the incentive for buying the commercial version of their compiler is a year of free updates, I feel a bit 'taken'. I bought Manx (directly from them) sometime in the February/March 1986 time frame. It seems if the above is true, I'll be darn lucky to just 'squeak in' one update. I'm not directly flaming Manx.. I understand they had to delay for 1.2. It's just disappointing. I will get somewhat preturbed if it's delayed past March, since my year will have run out. BTW. Anyone in the Western NY area want to buy a used Amiga? I'm thinking of getting a Turbo complete with new Amiga, SONY monitor, etc. -- Jeff Gortatowsky {allegra,seismo}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg Eastman Kodak Company <Kodak won't be responsible for the above comments, only those below>