bishop@foobar.hf.intel.com (Brian Bishop) (06/13/88)
In article <351@vector.UUCP> chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >BTW, has anybody beaten the 286 XENIX ld into submission and gotten a >reasonable elm 2.0 executable? There has been some very nasty flailing >going down here... ld? How about cc? I get "expression too complicated" in elm.c (845) and screen.c (305). It's those silly nested ?:'s in sprintf's that Dave seems so fond of (actually, they are cute; just more hate for Microsoft). I know I can split them up, but I would rather not. I'm using Intel XENIX 286 R3.5 with 2 MB of memory in an Intel 310/286. -- Brian Lloyd Bishop <tektronix!psu-cs | uunet!littlei>!foobar!bishop WB7BSF, Cessna 150 N5513G bishop@foobar<.hf.intel.com|.uucp> Multibus II CPU Dev., Intel Corp. "Networks: can't live with them 1 503 696 7699 Hillsboro OR and you can't live without them."