canada@crash.UUCP (09/02/87)
Can anyone recommend a good C compiler for the Apple IIc? Can you e-mail
me "reviews" of the C compilers out there? Specific criteria are:
1. Can any of them use apple's "extended" memory? By that I mean the 512K
expansions.
2. How closely do they conform to unix system calls (other than the standard
C library). How about curses?
3. Do any of them require anything extra to use? ie. an assembler or linker.
4. How much disk space do they require? Are any of them practical to use with
floppies?
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.
______________________________
Diane Barlow Close | | __/\__ | | O Canada,
{akgua, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, | | ____\ /____ | | My former home
nosc}!crash!canada | | > ` ' < | | And Native
crash!canada@nosc.mil | | >___ ___< | | Land.
| | /____\ | |
|_____|________||________|_____|gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (09/02/87)
In article <1638@crash.CTS.COM> canada@crash.CTS.COM (Diane Barlow Close) writes: >Can anyone recommend a good C compiler for the Apple IIc? Can you e-mail >me "reviews" of the C compilers out there? Specific criteria are: There are a couple of commercially-available C compilers for the Apple II. I only have experience with "Aztec C" from Manx Software Systems in NJ. The following comments apply to that compiler (ProDOS professional version, something like $300 for the whole package, which includes screen editor, grep, diff, assembler, linker, librarian, graphics library, shell, etc.). >1. Can any of them use apple's "extended" memory? By that I mean the 512K > expansions. Aztec C does not automatically use extended memory. If you have it configured as a "RAM disk", it can use it just like a floppy. >2. How closely do they conform to unix system calls (other than the standard > C library). How about curses? Aztec C's library is remarkably close to UNIX's, but of course many UNIX system calls make no sense for an Apple II. I must say that many general-purpose applications developed for a UNIX environment are easy to port to Aztec C. There is even some terminal ioctl support. Aztec C does not supply a "curses" library, but they do provide a library of display routines that can be used to do some of the same things. They also provide a graphics library for simple plotting- like applications. >3. Do any of them require anything extra to use? ie. an assembler or linker. The compiler generates assembly code, and the assembler generates relocatable object code, which the linker combines with libraries to produce an absolute executable binary. One can build stand-alone applications, or applications that run only under the UNIX-like shell provided with the package. The shell itself is a major enhancement to the Apple environment. I use it a lot even though I have a IIGS with its desktop environment. Aztec C actually contains two sets of compiler/assembler/libraries, one set for generating native 6502 instructions and the other for generating an interpreted language. Usually the first is fastest and the second takes less space. Objects compiled both ways can be linked into the same executable binary. By the way, they do have floating-point support and a math library, although last release I got appears to require compiling for the interpreter if you use floating-point. I think this was unintentional and it may only show up on a IIGS, or something like that. All you need to develop C applications is supplied in the package. >4. How much disk space do they require? Are any of them practical to use with > floppies? Aztec C can be used with two 5.25" floppy drives, although it gets a bit tedious. Generally one configures two floppies for drive 1, one containing the compiler/assembler and the other containing the linker/libraries. Then drive 2 holds the user source and compiled objects. It is really much better with a hard disk or even a 3.5" drive. The main drawback to Aztec C is that compilation takes a long time. I invariably go do other things while compilation is proceeding. Fortunately their shell supports "exec files" (like shell scripts), so you don't have to babysit the system through a series of compilations.
ansley@sunybcs.uucp (William Ansley) (08/06/88)
I would appreciate any information anyone can give me about C compilers for the Apple II family of computers and compatibles (specifically I would like to hear about compilers that run on the Apple //e and/or the Laser 128) if such things exist. Specifically I would like to hear about the pros and cons of commercial C compilers as well as cost and availability, and I would like to know if there are any public domain C compilers that are worth while and, if so, where I could get one. I will be very grateful for any help I get on this. Please send me mail rather than posting, as I don't have time to read this group. If I receive mail expressing interest in my findings, I will post a summary to this group. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Ansley, Dept. of CS, 226 Bell Hall, SUNY at Buffalo, NY 14260. ansley@gort.cs.buffalo.EDU | ansley@sunybcs.BITNET | ansley@sunybcs.UUCP
MSER001@ECNCDC.BITNET (02/07/89)
Just kidding about the generic and go play with ada. But not kidding about finding a Good C compiler for Apple II, or IIe using 64k memory. Apples fault for not putting 128k in every Apple //e they ever Shipped. They Should know that education will cheap out and buy the lowest form of hardware they can get away with. Anyway... I was wondering if any of you would like to create a Apple II+,IIe and IIGS c program that would consider some of the shortcomings of some of the C compilers, and compile them on all of the compilers that should be out. I have Aztec C compiler for the Apple in the ROM form on an IBM, as I dont have the time to compile on the Apple. I find that it has Poor Screen handling, and Have to do all my screen I/O with assembly routines. Otherwise its way too slow! Other problems too, but Make this message short. Well, if anyone is interested in creating a Test of Compilers for the Apple, we Could Post the Results here. I just found myself telling someone that they should not get Aztec C, since its not supported, and creates monster code with poor performance. Normally I dont say such things unless I have enough information to BACK my claim. As I really dont have information to Back my claim, I was wondering If anyone would like to Indulge in testing the compilers out their? Scott Hutinger