Re: A86: What C-compilers have we got? [82/83/83+/85/86]
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A86: What C-compilers have we got? [82/83/83+/85/86]
Thanks Steve, for helping 'me'. That the Ti compilers can only display text
is defenitely to the past, I haven't found one that couldn't display
sprites (XOR-/AND-/OR'ed) and lines.
---okay TISCO... but the TISCO compiler produces very good code, and the
developer did only look at the code generating part, so no extensive C-lib
is included, although it can be easely added by taking parts from the other
ones---
It is defenitely true that most of the C-compilers can't really do anyting,
but this is more because only a few people are actually developing them.
Off coarse if you can program raw ASM very well, you don't need a
C-compiler. But people who are starting with programming assembly would be
very pleased. C is for most people easier to understand than raw ASM, you
know.
-----
> Steve wrote:
> It's not a problem in C but rather the person who makes it and if they
> know how to optimize the code or not.
The developer of TISCO knew how to optimize, only this is a bit lately
discoverd by the Ti-community. TISCO is made back in 1998, and I haven't
been able to get in touch with the programmer. So we don't have the source
code...
> What someone should do is include the simplest of functions built into
> the translator and then make it use header files so they can be updated
> by the end user to do the routines they want to be used in them, i havent
> used any c->z80 translator so i dont know how flexible any of them are
> but that would be the only way to make a good translator that would be
> the most optimized and most flexible
The C-lib of Ti8xcc is built like that, it can compile for the Ti-86 and
the Ti-83. You input this via an option which imports a 'macro' into the
code. The include-files now act on this by loading the proper C-routines
via '#ifdef' and '#include'.
BTW: there is also another way, TISCO can do 'dead code elemination'. Code
that isn't used isn't include in the end program, so you can just put all
the routines you have in one big library, and just eleminate the code that
isn't used.
> >
> > Bah! The Z80 wasn't designed for C. Rather, C isn't a language which
> > favors the z80.
> > Implementing the C language relys heavily on stack access, indirect
> > memory access, and larger chunks of linear memory.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > > I would, but there are no compilers out there that actually WORK.
> > > I've tried small c, and that just didn't seem to align text and stuff
> > > like that properly...Other C compilers just didn't have the necessary
> > > functions included - I could make a text based game at best.
Small-C is just a 'subset' of the C language family. It is a simpeler form
of C, it has been developed back in the '80s for the Z80 and other 8-bit
processors. So it's very likely that a C-compiler for the Ti is actually a
"Small-C" compiler, or is even called that way. (I don't say that there are
no "true C-compilers" for the Z80, for example take a look at
http://gbdk.sourceforge.net/ )
> > > >
> > > > rabidcow@juno.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > does anyone really program in c for the 86?
> > > > i'd think the 9k limit on regular asm progs & the oddness of
> > > > structure required for larger programs would make a c compiler
> > > > kind of inappropriate.
Maybe you didn't understand it (or I din't understand you...), all those
compilers are cross-compilers, they run on you PC, and generate ASM code,
it is assembled and you can execute it on your Ti. So no "on-calc"
C-compilers.
Follow-Ups: