Lattice C for IBM Mainframes from SAS

[Peter DaSilva]

> >Me
> Eric Brown
Me :->

[I made a request for information. Eric responded with what looks like a flame]

> >one that made a decent effort at implementing section 3. That was 6 months
> >ago and that was the one I bought.
> 
> You call 30 incompatible string functions, no math library, and a broken 
> setjmp.h implementing section 3????  At the time, Wizard was selling a 
> compiler that emulated a full System III library with MS-DOS extensions that 
> was at least as bug free as Lattice 2.1[34] (not sure which version was
> current).

I'm using Lattice 2.15. It supports the math library and the UNIX string
functions. Setjmp works fine. I don't know what older versions are like,
just what's available now.

> >Also, I don't have any #ifdef LATTICE statements. I do have a couple
> >of #ifdef IBMPC, but that's because the IBM-PC doesn't implement ioctl
> >and stat. :->  How many macros do you use that extend over 1 line anyway?
> 
> Well, you must never use realloc, since realloc is not implemented in Lattice

No, I don't.  Do I have to?

> 2.15 and below.  Furthermore, since Lattice doesn't support struct assignment,

Neither does V7 UNIX 'C', which is the base defacto language definition. Since
I'm currently using a slightly berkeleyised V7 I'm quite satisfied.

> I end up with lots of multiline macros to fake the struct assignment.

Why not just use pointers? I've never felt the need to assign structures, at
least not if I can't add & multiply them as well (the only thing I like about
ADA is that you can do this, with a little care).

> Also, 
> Lattice apparently never heard of unsigned long, since Lattice barfs on it.

So does K&R.

> >Anyway, if uSoft 'C' is particularly UNIX-library-compatible I'd like to
> >know about it.  I'm always looking for anything to help my massive porting
> >habit.
> 
> As far as I can tell, Microsoft C is a port of their Xenix C compiler to 
> MS-DOS.

Last time I looked Microsoft 'C' was a slightly modified version of Lattice
'C', which is why I asked the question. If it's Xenix 'C' that's more like
it.

> At least the library looks like a bunch of Xenix functions.
> 
> 
> Happy with Wizard C,
> 
> Eric C. Brown

Beating out the fires,

Peter da Silva