Re: A83: Ti8xcc [82/83/83+/85/86]

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A83: Ti8xcc [82/83/83+/85/86]


On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Henk Poley wrote:



> We can also invoke the optimizer (copt) which is used in Ti8xcc to add new
> optimizations (if we find any).

Have you actually tried this?  I'm just slightly worried that the format
of TISCO output might be different enought that it wouldn't work.  But,
probably it will.  Anyway, there certainly are some optimizations that
could be added; I can even think of a few myself.  But, the hard part is
doing optimizations on a larger scale, rather than just replacing small
sequences of instructions with better ones.  That's why I recommended a
Z80 port of GCC.

> Okay, I agree. But I think that introducing a/some higher language(s) is
> usefull for the people who can't program in asm (find it difficult to
> learn).

Yes, it is.  Beyond that, writing and debugging a program in C takes much
less time than an equivalent program in assembly, allowing one to be more
productive.

> *** Phoenix II Ti-89/92(+) is made with Ti-GCC (isn't it?)***

Yes, it is.  So are Aerox, TI-Chess, and (to a significant
extent) Mr. Nutz.  But, most likely what I was trying to say is that the
situation isn't like this on the Z80, as none of the compilers are as good
as GCC.

> I chose Ti8xcc because it was the most complete 'C'-compiler I could find,
> and it was already for 2 calcs (portability). But this lack of structs is
> really anoying (just try to make decent file-handling routines without
> them...).

When I think of a programming language for the calculator, my main concern
is of course how well it can be used to program games.  And if code is
huge and slow, that doesn't make for good games.

Of course, even though (since it structs and better output) I do consider
the TISCO compiler the best, I am of course painfully aware of its
incompleteness as well.

> [in reference to a GCC port to the Z80]
> 
> Okay, anybody who wants to help, I would suggest?

I might be willing to work on this task.  However, I'm not at all certain
that I have the necessary skills to do it.

> [referring to obtaining TISCO source code]
>
> I've mailed to the adresses mentioned in the docs, but these adresses don't
> exist anymore. I've searched the web and I found 5 other adress from
> persons with the same name. Two have already bounced back, maybe I've some
> luck with the others.

Well, good luck.  I would expect that someone who programs a C compiler
would have enough interest in electronic communication to remain
available.
 
> The way I look(ed) at this is more because of the way the maker of TISCO
> uses it's compiler, ex:
> 
> void main ()
> {
>     uint2OP1(2);
>     uint2OP2(4);
>     dispOP1();
>     FPDIV();
>     dispOP1();
>     FPSQUARE();
>     dispOP1();
>     INTGR();
>     dispOP1();
> }
> 
> ûhm, not very C-like

But, we will always use 8-bit integeres (or maybe 16-bit occasionally),
right?  It would be nice if the compiler did allow "normal" floating point
math, but I don't think any of the Z80 calculator ones do (even TI-GCC
doesn't!)

[list of other compilers]

This is probably the most important thing in the message.  Quite likely,
swithcing to one of these compilers is a good idea.  I will write more on
this subject soon.

In particular, I think the z88dk is probably something we should consider
using.  It is (at least according to the documentation) almost a complete
compiler, hopefully without the limitations of either TI8XCC or
TISCO.  Even though you said there was no DOS version, it seems that there
is one now (the download page has a link to another page with both Win32
and DOS versions).

Last, I don't think a gameboy compiler could be used as-is; the gameboy
CPU is *not* identical to the calculator's.
References: