Re: A89: Re: TI-GCC IDE v2.4 with Syntax Highlighting
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Re: TI-GCC IDE v2.4 with Syntax Highlighting
There -is- a patch to make gcc compile to m68k-unknown-coff as tigcc.
I know this because I have it myself ;)
http://www.ticalc.org/pub/unix/tigcc.tar.gz
--robin
Julian Stoev wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 04:38:51PM -0400, Sebastian Reichelt wrote:
> |
> |Hi!
> |
> || Cygwin installs for 20 minutes on any Win98/NT and is free. Just try it.
> || Or at least read more about it. http://www.cygnus.com/cygwin/
> || I don't remember the size, but some time ago the zip file was around 10MB.
> || Now it downloads itself. You just need this
> || ftp://ftp.freesoftware.com/pub/sourceware/cygwin/latest/setup.exe
> || (424 Kb)
> |
> |Sorry. You misunderstood me. I was talking about the IDE, which just uses
> |GCC, but has nothing to do with it. In order to port the IDE, you would
> |have to get Delphi for Linux.
>
> I am afraid we both miss the point. My idea is NOT to port *this* IDE.
> A program writen in Delphi is not a candidate for porting, so I just
> plain forget about this. :(
>
> My idea is mainly for TI-GCC to be portable. I can make "IDE" for me in
> VIM for 1 hour including syntax highliting. ;) Well... not many people
> like to work in vi-ish IDE, but if you get used to this, you are
> broken forever. If your IDE is portable too, this would be very nice,
> but as somebody mentioned here, many things can not be done in IDE.
> The "raw" Makefile is sometimes the best thing for speed and size.
>
> || Just think about the debugger gdb. It will be pain to make it debug TI,
> || but if/when it starts to work... :-)))))))
> |
> |Together with VTI and the linker, it might be possible.
>
> Not sure about this. You speak about different thing. VTI is (kind of)
> debugger by itself. But it is ASM debugger. It is not
> C/C++/Ada/Fortran/[any_other_language_supported_in_gcc] debugger.
> While VTI is very good, in many complicated situations it will
> delay the things very much.
>
> || Some people find C++ very natural. My area is not C++ by itself and no
> || GUI at all. I am in symbolic calculation (that's why I am interested
> || in TI89). This is area dominated by Mathematica, Maple, Reduce,
> || Maxima, Macsyma, Axiom, MuPAD,.... big monster programs compared to
> || TI89.
> |
> |C++? Natural? The syntax is a pain, and the way objects are static by
> |default just makes it worse. I wonder what Borland C++ is like, but it's
> |probably as portable as Delphi to Pascal (read: no way).
>
> I have a very fresh example with the free Borland 5.5 compiler
> compared to cygwin. The cygwin compiled code was 19 KB, while the
> bcc32 compiled code was 73KB. Cygwin code was not linked to
> cygwin.dll. Just to Windows dll-s, so this is not the reason why it
> was smaller. Cygwin code was faster also and compiled cleanly, while
> the "ANSI" bcc was giving warnings about stupid things.
>
> || I think you didn't look at glade... But it is your right to use
> || Delphi.
> |
> |Thanks.
> |
> || Just in this way the results will not be portable and I am not
> || sure how free Delphi for Linux will be... Is it going to be
> || available in source?....???
> |
> |Delphi 4 for Windows, with sources for the VCL (Visual Component Library),
> |cost me 250 DM ($125). This is because I'm a student. It also implies that
> |I cannot commercially distribute my programs. The real version costs 1500
> |DM ($750).
>
> My God!!!
>
> || Please understand my post in correct way. The efforts are nice. But TI
> || is looking at TI calculators as college tools for kids and nothing more.
> || It is pain for me to see this. TI89 is very powerfull and with the
> || right approach not only games can be good for it. It can do some very
> || interesting things, but this needs some more effort. I can not
> || contribute if I don't have the right tools.
> |
> |In my opinion, TI is just afraid of a growing TI community. They probably
> |think it will grow over their heads, with students creating everything TI
> |gets its money for. At least that would explain why their SDK is so
> |limited. I wonder whether they are going to obstruct us some way in the
> |near future, like making a new AMS with no support for previous ASM games,
> |and making it illegal to distribute their previous AMS. I don't know.
> |Maybe I'm wrong, and they just don't see where the movement is going here.
> |But I'm pretty sure that their primary fear is loss of profits.
>
> I tend to agree with you. But some internal information I get from TI
> suggests, that it is also the question about plain simple stupidity.
> They don't know how to do this and are afraid to make something wrong.
> That's why they prefer to do nothing or very little.
>
> |As for the right tools, if you have Windows, they are there. If you don't,
> |you should probably get it and keep it as a secondary OS until Linux takes
> |over the world. :-)
>
> I look around and see 5 Win98 + 1 W2K + 1 Sun + 1 Linux. I miss Mac
> only. I don't think I need a secondary OS. Plenty of primary OS-es.
> Plus there is a thing named Vmware (www.vmware.com)
>
> ;-) These tools are nice and I admire them. But in this form they are
> appropriate only for relatively simple tasks like games. They are
> still much better compared to what comes from TI.
>
> I have to retire from this nice conversation and go to sleep. Wish you
> good luck!
>
> --JS
References: