RMC100@PSUVM.BITNET (11/15/89)
A friend of mine and I are going to be writing a specialized Tektronix graphics emulator for the Apple. What would be the best compiler to handle communications (2400 baud is fine), graphics (at least pixels and lines), and disk I/O? The last compiler I used on the Apple was UCSD Pascal and it's speed was dismal. How does the code produced by existing compilers compare to 6502 assembly, and do these compilers allow the use of assembly language subroutines? Is Merlin still the best available assembler? Finally, what types of libraries can I expect to find in a good compiler/assembler (for items listed in sentence number two)? Thanks in advance for the recommendations... Randy Carraghan (rmc100@psuvm.bitnet)
ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.COM (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (11/21/89)
In-Reply-To: message from psuvm!rmc100@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu I've been using ORCA/M 4.1 for the past couple of months and I think this is the best assembler available, the graphics libraries are priceless. ORCA/GS is likely as good or better, particular with the desktop debugger. Comm libraries are built into the GS ROM to a certain extent, use them. This insures compatibility across all revisions. ORCA/C will provide the HLL for complex data structures and logic flow and supports inline assembly (it really just tacks onto ORCA/GS and generates assmbly language soource, if it is consistent with small/C). When it is working will it be PD, if so I would like a copy. Hope it runs HGR and DHR graphics as well!! ANything enjoyable will eventually become bad for you.
blochowi@rt4.cs.wisc.edu (Jason Blochowiak) (11/23/89)
In article <7680.infoapple.net@pro-generic> ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.COM (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from psuvm!rmc100@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu > [Deleted some stuff] > ORCA/GS is >likely as good or better, particular with the desktop debugger. I've not been able to get the Orca/Desktop to work for me the least bit reliably, even with 2Mb of RAM. Perhaps I just do things that aggravate it, as other people seem to be able to get it to work. The assembler is pretty nice, although it does have some odd quirks (like the lack of orthogonality with regards to the macro include directive [mcopy]). > ORCA/C will provide the HLL for complex >data structures and logic flow and supports inline assembly (it really just >tacks onto ORCA/GS and generates assmbly language soource, if it is consistent >with small/C). Well, unless I'm really missing something, Orca/C doesn't generate assembly - it goes straight to object, which is probably best, as the overhead wouldn't be thrilling. However, it would be nice if it could generate assembly source for some tweaking. -- Jason Blochowiak - blochowi@garfield.cs.wisc.edu or jason@madnix.uucp "Education, like neurosis, begins at home." - Milton R. Sapirstein
ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.COM (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (11/27/89)
In-Reply-To: message from puff!rt4.cs.wisc.edu!blochowi%speedy.wisc.edu@BRL.MIL The Autumn 89 issue of Call a.p.p.l.e. states in the summary that Orca/C can produce a source listing ( I assume assembly language source). The assembler may be more tightly integrated than APW C or Small C, but it is still there somewhere and it should be possible to flag it to not delete its temp files. My understanding of compilers is that any compiler parses the language and builds either a p-code listing which is then interpreted to run or an assembly listing which is assembled to machine code. The linker then makes the object code into a load module for stand alone operation. I had added 1 and 1 and gotten 2 for my conclusions on Orca/C, my mistake was that it was binary code and thus should have gotten 10 (clearing the carry bit beforehand of course!).
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (12/01/89)
In article <7958.infoapple.net@pro-generic> ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.COM (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >My understanding of compilers is that any compiler parses the language and >builds either a p-code listing which is then interpreted to run or an assembly >listing which is assembled to machine code. Nope, in fact before UNIX it was rather unusual for a compiler to create a file full of assembly language. Most would directly generate object code.
reeder@reed.UUCP (Doug Reeder) (12/04/89)
In article <7958.infoapple.net@pro-generic> ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.COM (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes:
;My understanding of compilers is that any compiler parses the language and
;builds either a p-code listing which is then interpreted to run or an assembly
;listing which is assembled to machine code. The linker then makes the object
;code into a load module for stand alone operation. I had added 1 and 1 and
;gotten 2 for my conclusions on Orca/C, my mistake was that it was binary code
;and thus should have gotten 10 (clearing the carry bit beforehand of course!).
Some compilers, such as the Aardvaark Pascal compiler, compile directly to
machine code. This usually is faster, but often produces bulkier code.
--
Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!reeder
Box 722 Reed College BITNET: reeder@reed.BITNET
Portland, OR 97202 from ARPA: tektronix!reed!reeder@berkeley.EDU
'The American from Richland' "A blaster can point two ways." -Salvor Hardin