blochowi@rt5.cs.wisc.edu (Jason Blochowiak) (12/13/89)
I own APW C & Orca/C, and I haven't seen anything anywhere in the
documentation for generating 6502/65c02 compatible code. Doing this would
require modifying the "code tiles" used in the compiler, as well as changing
any machine-level optimization routines, in addition to necessitating (sp?)
a different, 8 bit library. All in all, a mess that (IMHO) isn't worth it.
Aztec C isn't great (I think it's too slow with my TWgs, HD, and
mongo /RAM5), but it does work, and there aren't too many bugs (but there are
bugs...). I've been using it recently for a contract job for some book
publishing folks, and it isn't my choice environment, but Manx does still
exist, and according to my employer, they still give tech support for it.
As a side note, I talked to Mike Westerfield about how Orca/C
generates code - he assured me that there's no assembly going on inside
Orca/C (with the probable exception of the mini-assembler - I didn't ask :). He
said that Small/C was intended as a learning tool more than a real compiler
(just like Pascal is a more a learning tool than a real language... He didn't
say that, I did, and if you need to get your flamethrower out, do it via
email). Btw, I was just peripherally aware that the APW linker was required to
be written in Small C by the folks at Apple, but he mentioned it to me when we
were talking about linkers - anyone know how that hairbrained requirement came
to be?
--
Jason Blochowiak - blochowi@garfield.cs.wisc.edu or jason@madnix.uucp
"Education, like neurosis, begins at home." - Milton R. SapirsteinnicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (12/15/89)
In article <4029@puff.cs.wisc.edu>, blochowi@rt5.cs.wisc.edu (Jason Blochowiak) writes: > Btw, I was just peripherally aware that the APW linker was required to > be written in Small C by the folks at Apple, but he mentioned it to me when we > were talking about linkers - anyone know how that hairbrained requirement came > to be? if you talk to mike westerfield again, you'll find out that apple wanted the linker to be portable. My guess is that they wanted it to be portable so that MPW IIgs could eventually be built, and mike's linker eventually evolved into LinkIIGS. Meanwhile, APW 2.0 is supposed to be much faster than APW 1.0 and Orca 1.1 -- most of the people on the net would get a kick out of what mike said at the KC Developer meeting: One of the first things the APW and Orca assemblers do is switch in to 6502 emulation mode as soon as they are started, and run their old 8-bit code for assembling stuff. And, since the linker is built with Small/C, I'd guess you could expect some improvement in both products. LinkIIGS is faster for linking, but you have to have a rather large amount of memory and be doing a decently large project to get any benefit from its use. gs shrinkit is big enough for LinkIIGS to help. andy -- Andy Nicholas GEnie, AM-Online: shrinkit Box 435, Moravian College CompuServe: 70771,2615 Bethlehem, PA 18018 InterNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu
dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) (12/15/89)
In article <733@batman.moravian.EDU> nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) writes: >if you talk to mike westerfield again, you'll find out that apple wanted the >linker to be portable. My guess is that they wanted it to be portable so that >MPW IIgs could eventually be built, and mike's linker eventually evolved into >LinkIIGS. Actually, I don't believe LinkIIGS (either the MPW IIgs or the native GS version) was based on the Byte Works linker. -- --David A. Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems Apple II Developer Technical Support | P.O. Box 875 America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.