Re: [OT] Re: A86: C compiler

To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: A86: C compiler
From: Nuno Sao Joao <nmasj@camoes.rnl.ist.utl.pt>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:34:51 +0100
Delivered-To: assembly-86-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org
References: <19990615202603.93404.qmail@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org

J D wrote:
> 
> I think we talked about these way back when someone suggested a C++ compiler
> for the 86.  What are they and how are they different from Small C?
> Anybody?  Oh, yes, and a matter of curiosity - aren't those compilers
> designed to work generically with the z80?  How is it, then, that we can use
> them to do things with the 86's video, etc?

  I can speak about TISCO only. TISCO has types, it's a very
  simple C: no casts, no boolean expressions, only unsigned
  integer basic types (8 and 16bits), some other limitations.
  TISCO can be used to write programs for any z80 based calc,
  but one feature is only available for TI-86: DLLs.
  There is inline assembly.
  The video memory can be accessed trough a pointer. It's always
  possible to write library functions to access the hardware
  (and some do exist, but don't cover everything).

  I can't see why we shouldn't program in a higher language
  than asm to the calcs (specially ti-86, because of the more
  memory). C++, Objective C and other 'even higher' level
  languages are too heavy ans useless to the calcs, but not a
  simple one like C. Ok, that's true, the best C compiler is
  beateen by an asm programmer. The point is that maybe the
  difference is relatively small, and well worth it the easier
  programming in a higher language.

  NSJ

References:

Re: [OT] Re: A86: C compiler

From: J D <starkruzr@hotmail.com>