ix181@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (John Ogawa) (10/04/86)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Eat away you monster!!! <<<<<<<<<<<
I am an avid C++ fan who is about to get an Atari 1040ST and a C
package. My question is: is there any way to get a C++ package for
the 1040? Alternately, is there any C source code for CC that I can
get my hands on?
Thanks in advance.
John Ogawa
UC San Diegodclemans@mntgfx.UUCP (Dave Clemans) (10/07/86)
Oasys Systems has been advertising commercial support for C++ in a variety of systems; in particular using Lattice C on the IBM PC. It would be relatively simple bring up C++ under Lattice C for the ST; Oasys just has to be convinced that it is worth the effort to do so. None of the other ST C compilers (especially Alcyon C which comes with the developers kit) would be usable back-ends for C++; the backend compiler the AT&T released C++ frontend REALLY!!! needs at least 32 significant characters in names. To my knowledge, Lattice C (using the GST linker) is the only ST C compiler that can support 32 significant characters in names. dgc
brinsmead@calgary.UUCP (Mark Brinsmead) (10/07/86)
In article <2939@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU>, ix181@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (John Ogawa) writes: > I am an avid C++ fan who is about to get an Atari 1040ST and a C > package. My question is: is there any way to get a C++ package for > the 1040? Alternately, is there any C source code for CC that I can > get my hands on? I am afraid this is unlikely. All C++ compilers I am aware of (i.e. AT&T's) are actually fancy preprocessors that spit out rather wild looking C. If CC is to work on an atari, your ATARI C compiler must (and i mean MUST) be able to cope with *ARBITRARILY* long identifiers. I am not aware of any C compiler for the atari ST that will suffice, (my own Lattice C compiler nmormally uses only the first 8 characters, and will in any event, use at most 32 characters of an identifier. This is probably not enough for C++. ) M. Brinsmead @ Univewrsity of Calgary.
lbl@druhi.UUCP (LocklearLB) (10/09/86)
In article <429@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>, brinsmead@calgary.UUCP (Mark Brinsmead) writes: > In article <2939@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU>, ix181@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (John Ogawa) writes: > > I am an avid C++ fan who is about to get an Atari 1040ST and a C > > package. My question is: is there any way to get a C++ package for > > the 1040? Alternately, is there any C source code for CC that I can > > get my hands on? > > I am afraid this is unlikely. All C++ compilers I am aware of > (i.e. AT&T's) are actually fancy preprocessors that spit out rather > wild looking C. If CC is to work on an atari, your ATARI C compiler > must (and i mean MUST) be able to cope with *ARBITRARILY* long > identifiers. > > I am not aware of any C compiler for the atari ST that will suffice, > (my own Lattice C compiler nmormally uses only the first 8 characters, > and will in any event, use at most 32 characters of an identifier. > This is probably not enough for C++. ) > > M. Brinsmead @ Univewrsity of Calgary. If your compiler is capable of handling 32 character variable names, you should normally not have any problems with using C++. There may be isolated cases where problems would occur, but the names that the C++ compiler generates are usually unique in the first 32 characters. Of course, it would be nice if one of the C vendors for the ST would provide a true flexname capability. It really isn't very difficult to do! Barry Locklear AT&T Information Systems Labs Denver, CO 80234 (303) 538-4954 ihnp4!drutx!druhi!lbl
braner@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (braner) (10/10/86)
Regarding the need for a C compiler that would handle long identifiers, y'all might not know that Megamax recognizes the first 10 chars, and allows very long total length. That may still not be enough for C++ - I dunno. (and you still need to get that C++ preprocessor...) BTW: I devised a method to do object-oriented programming in C. Not fancy but simple, and you get inheritance and even late binding of sorts with high efficiency (about 100 microSecs for a typical invocation of a method). If anybody is interested let me know. - Moshe Braner
cgoudeseune@watnot.UUCP (center of gravity) (10/14/86)
I hear all these complaints that most C's only support 8-character identifiers, and the C++ preprocessor *needs* thirty-two. Say we use only 7-character letters-only identifiers. 26^7 = 8 031 810 176. Seeing as how any C++ preprocessor is unlikely to produce over 8 billion different identifiers, is there a good reason why a little filter couldn't be inserted between C++'s output and C's input to shrink the size of these huge identifiers to a manageable size. Sure, it's slow; we've got a 8 MHz 68000. Sure, it's a kludge; it works! (I hope) Camille
mvh@cbnap.UUCP (M.L. Vonder Haar x4126 3E257) (10/14/86)
In article <12069@watnot.UUCP> cgoudeseune@watnot.UUCP (center of gravity) writes: >I hear all these complaints that most C's only support 8-character >identifiers, and the C++ preprocessor *needs* thirty-two. > >Say we use only 7-character letters-only identifiers. >26^7 = 8 031 810 176. >Seeing as how any C++ preprocessor is unlikely to produce over 8 billion >different identifiers, is there a good reason why a little filter couldn't >be inserted between C++'s output and C's input to shrink the size of these >huge identifiers to a manageable size. >Sure, it's slow; we've got a 8 MHz 68000. Sure, it's a kludge; it works! >(I hope) > I just hope you never have a bug. Sdb is only fair as a debugger for C++. But if you generated names that could not be easily transformed by programmers to what they wrote in C++ sdb would be just about useless. The way I see it you'll need to write your own debugger at the same time. Mark L Vonder Haar {ihnp4|cbosgd}!cbnap!mvh
brinsmead@calgary.UUCP (Mark Brinsmead) (10/15/86)
In article <1117@druhi.UUCP>, lbl@druhi.UUCP (LocklearLB) writes: > > If your compiler is capable of handling 32 character variable names, you should > normally not have any problems with using C++. There may be isolated cases > where problems would occur, but the names that the C++ compiler generates are > usually unique in the first 32 characters. Of course, it would be nice if one > of the C vendors for the ST would provide a true flexname capability. It really > isn't very difficult to do! > Oops, I guess I stand corrected. Of course, I've always believed that if something dosen't work for certain isolated cases, it simply dosent work, however, I suppose that if it means we *CAN* have C++ on an ST, this is something we could learn to live with. (Provided, of course, that you don't mind not being able to count on a given (correct) program compiling.) Where do I order my Cfront?
bammi@case.CSNET ("Jwahar R. Bammi") (10/16/86)
Such a filter called 'shortc' has been over the net at least twice. It works great on my ST.
braner@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (braner) (10/16/86)
[] Filtering long identifiers into short (but not mnemonic) forms would work, I guess. But since we also have a Megabyte, it is not reasonable to limit identifiers to anything less than 255 chars! Come on, compiler makers: it's 1986! - Moshe Braner
cgoudeseune%watnot.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET (center of gravity) (10/17/86)
I imagined someone had already thought of that idea before (shortc); I'm no incredible wizard myself. I'll look for it here at waterloo. oh, my path is cuae2!clyde!watmath!watnot!cgoudeseune in case you were wondering. While i'm bothering you, can you foresee anyone porting smalltalk or actor to the ST? 1 meg might not be enough, & a hard disk would certainly be necessary. The reason I ask is, i'm wondering what language to learn next. C++ seems powerful, but so do the other two. and lisp would be neat too. sigh. And as i'm taking 9 courses this term (6 is an honours load), i haven't really got the time to learn them all in enough depth that i'll know which one to master. Life's weird. Thanks for your time, Camille Goudeseune.
desj@brahms@ndmce.uucp (David desJardins) (10/17/86)
In article <173@cbnap.UUCP> mvh@cbnap.UUCP (M.L. Vonder Haar x4126 3E257) writes: > I just hope you never have a bug. Sdb is only fair as a debugger > for C++. But if you generated names that could not be easily > transformed by programmers to what they wrote in C++ sdb would be > just about useless. > The way I see it you'll need to write your own debugger at the > same time. If it were important enough you could keep a table of the correspondences between symbol names and then write a postprocessor to rewrite the correct symbolic names into the a.out file; this shouldn't be more than a day's work. -- David desJardins
phr@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Rubin) (10/18/86)
In article <1222@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> braner@batcomputer.UUCP (braner) writes: >[] > >Filtering long identifiers into short (but not mnemonic) forms would >work, I guess. But since we also have a Megabyte, it is not reasonable >to limit identifiers to anything less than 255 chars! Come on, compiler >makers: it's 1986! If anyone is interested, note that the past few GNU Emacs distributions have included a simple program that reads C source code and produces a file of #define statements to map long identifiers into short ones. It also includes a replacement C Preprocesor (cpp) in case the one you are currently using doesn't handle arbitrarily long identifiers.