[A83] Re: Announcinga new TI-83 Development Suite

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

[A83] Re: Announcinga new TI-83 Development Suite

Yep, it's a pretty logical basis for a compiler.

It's just up to the compiler programmer to find what's best or easiest to
program.

You could program everything individually, or you could have stack wrapper
functions that will pre-load the registers from the stack depending on what
you send it/etc.

You'll really need to keep it as slim and not-overextended beyond the reach
of basic ROM calls/z80 ability in order to keep the program size down and
speed up.

You really need a template compiler so that we can easily switch c-library
wrappers in and out trying new things.

corey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Dial" <scott@scottdial.com>
To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:03 PM
Subject: [A83] Re: Announcinga new TI-83 Development Suite


> Agreed, consistency and well written specs are all that is required,
> just look at the 68k compilers for the 89/92/V200. Obviously they built
> the romcalls with the intent of being compliant to the C library
> standards, but there are plenty of functions that fail that assumption.
>
> My biggest used to always be how you would avoid using IY, but I read
> the SDCC manual and came across:
>
> "IX is used as the base pointer, HL is used as a temporary
> register, and BC and DE are available for holding varibles. IY is
> currently unusued. Return values are stored in HL. One bad side effect
> of using IX as the base pointer is that a functions stack frame is
> limited to 127 bytes - this will be fixed in a later version."
>
> So IY is ok.. I don't really see anything stopping you from using this,
> just a nessecary set of #define's to wrap the romcalls
>
> --
> Scott Dial
> scott@scottdial.com
> AIM GeekMug : ICQ# 3608935
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: assembly-83-bounce@lists.ticalc.org
> [mailto:assembly-83-bounce@lists.ticalc.org] On Behalf Of corey@acz.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:33 PM
> To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> Subject: [A83] Re: Announcinga new TI-83 Development Suite
>
> Well, you don't have to have 100% CRT compatability, you could
> simply require a special format for certain commands and then link
> in the ROM functions and call it.
>
> corey
>
> >>how would one modify it so that the compiler would make use of
> >>romcalls? would this be a library issue?
> >
> > That would indeed be a library issue.  You'd have to rewrite the
> bulk
> > of the  CRT (C RunTime library) to make it at all efficient, but
> you
> > could strictly  get the compiler working with (I would imagine) very
> > little effort.  SDCC  also has an assembler, as well as allowing
> inline
> > assembling, so you'd be  able to write the CRT it ASM for
> effieciencies
> > sake.  This was how it worked  on the GB compiler, a huge library
> > written in ASM.  Without sometihng like  that, your programs
> would be
> > laughably slow.
> >
> > Stupid like a fox!
> > Look ma, I'm an artist: http://aaronstj.deviantart.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________
> __
> > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
>
>
>
References: