How many of you are using 9.40?? I think I've found some major bugs
in the memory setup defines and macros, and am wondering if anyone
else has found simular?
Dynamic C 9.40 bugs?
Started by ●March 13, 2006
Reply by ●March 13, 20062006-03-13
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:55:14 -0000, nerdx86 wrote:
>How many of you are using 9.40?? I think I've found some major bugs
>in the memory setup defines and macros, and am wondering if anyone
>else has found simular?
I'm still using 9.25 or earlier, after hearing all the problems I'd
rather see others beta test it for awhile.
Heres what I see comparing DC9.25 to DC9.40
100 File(s) Match
108 File(s) Have been Changed( Some have lots of edits)
18 File(s) Are New
With these kinds of changes in between hard to believe there wouldn't
be major bugs!
Matt
>How many of you are using 9.40?? I think I've found some major bugs
>in the memory setup defines and macros, and am wondering if anyone
>else has found simular?
I'm still using 9.25 or earlier, after hearing all the problems I'd
rather see others beta test it for awhile.
Heres what I see comparing DC9.25 to DC9.40
100 File(s) Match
108 File(s) Have been Changed( Some have lots of edits)
18 File(s) Are New
With these kinds of changes in between hard to believe there wouldn't
be major bugs!
Matt
Reply by ●March 13, 20062006-03-13
Yeah, actually I'm still using 9.10. But, we are preparing a major
upgrade to the software that comunicates with the rabbit. I'd like
the new development for that to go forward in a little newer compiler.
:(
upgrade to the software that comunicates with the rabbit. I'd like
the new development for that to go forward in a little newer compiler.
:(
Reply by ●March 13, 20062006-03-13
nerdx86 wrote:
> How many of you are using 9.40?? I think I've found some major bugs
> in the memory setup defines and macros, and am wondering if anyone
> else has found simular?
>
Are you getting xmem addresses of 0xFFF8nnnn from xalloc() and xavail()
reports a garbage #?
Several have reported to me that the xmem allocation is corrupted using
my libs. I also have users report a char promotion problem with my timer
B lib.
Once I saw it generate wrong code for char math, I uninstalled it.
Supposedly it is fixed in 9.41.
I can't believe they released it with these obvious major bugs. My only
active DC project uses 7.33 as that was the last version that generated
reliable code. That project has being ported to Softools anyway.
I do need just about ever version of DC to test compatibility issues
with my libs. 9.40 and 8.01 are the only versions I will not support due
to the bugs in the compiler/libs.
When ZW starts actually changing the compiler, it scares me. I don't
think they have the resources to write and understand a compiler.
--
------
| Scott G. Henion| shenion@shen... |
| Consultant | Stone Mountain, GA |
| SHDesigns | PGP Key 0xE98DDC48 |
| http://www.shdesigns.org |
------
today's fortune
If God had not given us sticky tape, it would have been necessary to invent it.
> How many of you are using 9.40?? I think I've found some major bugs
> in the memory setup defines and macros, and am wondering if anyone
> else has found simular?
>
Are you getting xmem addresses of 0xFFF8nnnn from xalloc() and xavail()
reports a garbage #?
Several have reported to me that the xmem allocation is corrupted using
my libs. I also have users report a char promotion problem with my timer
B lib.
Once I saw it generate wrong code for char math, I uninstalled it.
Supposedly it is fixed in 9.41.
I can't believe they released it with these obvious major bugs. My only
active DC project uses 7.33 as that was the last version that generated
reliable code. That project has being ported to Softools anyway.
I do need just about ever version of DC to test compatibility issues
with my libs. 9.40 and 8.01 are the only versions I will not support due
to the bugs in the compiler/libs.
When ZW starts actually changing the compiler, it scares me. I don't
think they have the resources to write and understand a compiler.
--
------
| Scott G. Henion| shenion@shen... |
| Consultant | Stone Mountain, GA |
| SHDesigns | PGP Key 0xE98DDC48 |
| http://www.shdesigns.org |
------
today's fortune
If God had not given us sticky tape, it would have been necessary to invent it.
Reply by ●March 13, 20062006-03-13
I bought v9 about a month ago which meant v9.21 and the update to v9.40.
After spending awhile patching v9.21, it worked but xavail() shows
that 15k (relative to v8.61) disappeared. Dealbreaker.
So I tried v9.40, but it won't even compile (chokes on assigning a
constant structure to a structure).
Their support has been less than stellar. Every e-mail has to be sent
twice until they'll acknowledge it. (Solve it? Ha!
I'm still waiting.) Last I checked, v9.4 is still up
there.
Looking at the press release for the Rabbit 4000, it says it's due out
this month. I'm guessing that they're too busy with the chip and the
changes to DC to bother with customers.
After spending awhile patching v9.21, it worked but xavail() shows
that 15k (relative to v8.61) disappeared. Dealbreaker.
So I tried v9.40, but it won't even compile (chokes on assigning a
constant structure to a structure).
Their support has been less than stellar. Every e-mail has to be sent
twice until they'll acknowledge it. (Solve it? Ha!
I'm still waiting.) Last I checked, v9.4 is still up
there.
Looking at the press release for the Rabbit 4000, it says it's due out
this month. I'm guessing that they're too busy with the chip and the
changes to DC to bother with customers.
Reply by ●March 13, 20062006-03-13
> My only active DC project uses 7.33 as that was the
last
> version that generated reliable code.
> When ZW starts actually changing the compiler, it scares me. I
> don't think they have the resources to write and understand
> a compiler.
OK, these are scary observations! Does anyone from ZW actually pay
attention to the problems reported in this forum?
> version that generated reliable code.
> When ZW starts actually changing the compiler, it scares me. I
> don't think they have the resources to write and understand
> a compiler.
OK, these are scary observations! Does anyone from ZW actually pay
attention to the problems reported in this forum?
Reply by ●March 13, 20062006-03-13
--- In rabbit-semi@rabb..., Scott Henion wrote:
> I can't believe they released it with these obvious major bugs.
I can't believe that they still don't have a decent set of automated
regression tests. Apparantly, letting their customers find the bugs
is "good enough" for them. Despite the advantages of Softools, most
ZWorld hardware customers buy Dynamic C.
> When ZW starts actually changing the compiler, it scares me. I
> don't think they have the resources to write and understand a
> compiler.
There were smart guys in the software group when I worked at ZWorld,
and I assume there are smart people there now. Unless they ran them
off (ZWorld tends to have not insignificant turnover.)
When a new release sucks as bad as 9.40 does, I doubt that the
software folks had no idea about the problems. Instead, I would guess
that the new version was pushed out the door early in order to support
a hardware release.
Or as we say around my current employer, "buggy software indicates
poor management".
Kelly
> I can't believe they released it with these obvious major bugs.
I can't believe that they still don't have a decent set of automated
regression tests. Apparantly, letting their customers find the bugs
is "good enough" for them. Despite the advantages of Softools, most
ZWorld hardware customers buy Dynamic C.
> When ZW starts actually changing the compiler, it scares me. I
> don't think they have the resources to write and understand a
> compiler.
There were smart guys in the software group when I worked at ZWorld,
and I assume there are smart people there now. Unless they ran them
off (ZWorld tends to have not insignificant turnover.)
When a new release sucks as bad as 9.40 does, I doubt that the
software folks had no idea about the problems. Instead, I would guess
that the new version was pushed out the door early in order to support
a hardware release.
Or as we say around my current employer, "buggy software indicates
poor management".
Kelly
Reply by ●March 13, 20062006-03-13
--- In rabbit-semi@rabb..., Scott Henion wrote:
>
>
> Once I saw it generate wrong code for char math, I uninstalled it.
> Supposedly it is fixed in 9.41.
>
Were you told that there would be a v9.41? My "impression" (I won't
quote yet) is that there won't be.
>
>
> Once I saw it generate wrong code for char math, I uninstalled it.
> Supposedly it is fixed in 9.41.
>
Were you told that there would be a v9.41? My "impression" (I won't
quote yet) is that there won't be.
Reply by ●March 13, 20062006-03-13
At 02:58 PM 3/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>I do need just about ever version of DC to test compatibility issues
>with my libs. 9.40 and 8.01 are the only versions I will not support due
>to the bugs in the compiler/libs.
Interesting you mention 8.01 since that's the compiler I use. What
specifically does it not compile well that I should look out for? Since
I'm not spending any money to upgrade this compiler, or spending a ton of
time porting a rather large group of products to Softools, any benefit to
switching to 8.61? I noticed the object code it generates is significantly
larger than 8.01 which is why I haven't switched.
-Mike
>I do need just about ever version of DC to test compatibility issues
>with my libs. 9.40 and 8.01 are the only versions I will not support due
>to the bugs in the compiler/libs.
Interesting you mention 8.01 since that's the compiler I use. What
specifically does it not compile well that I should look out for? Since
I'm not spending any money to upgrade this compiler, or spending a ton of
time porting a rather large group of products to Softools, any benefit to
switching to 8.61? I noticed the object code it generates is significantly
larger than 8.01 which is why I haven't switched.
-Mike
Reply by ●March 13, 20062006-03-13
