cs64fba@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (TAI) (12/02/88)
Has anyone read the newest issue of ST-log? In an article concerning the X-former II (8-bit Atari Emulator) the author states that the TOS uses non-optimizing 68000 codes "everywhere". This must be one reason for GEM's slowness. Perhaps one approach currently for improving the ST is to write faster, more optimizing routines for components of GEM/TOS (such as AES, VDI, and Line-A routines) and interface these routines to the OS so that programs which call these TOS routines often can use our faster routines instead, like what the program "Turbo ST" is trying to do. This way current programs can remain compitable, and their performance can be improved. This approach also encourages the writing of well-behaved program since they can call our faster routines instead of finding someway to cheat in order to get the performance they need. This method can also serve as a starting point of writing a more complete TOS substitution. Any comments?
danscott@atari.UUCP (Dan Scott) (12/03/88)
in article <359@sdcc14.ucsd.edu>, cs64fba@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (TAI) says: > Sender:pa1132@sdcc15.ucsd.edu via sdcc14.ucsd.edu > Keywords:TOS, STOS, ST-LOG, 68000 > > Has anyone read the newest issue of ST-log? In an article > concerning the X-former II (8-bit Atari Emulator) the author states > that the TOS uses non-optimizing 68000 codes "everywhere". This > must be one reason for GEM's slowness. Perhaps one approach > currently for improving the ST is to write faster, more optimizing > routines for components of GEM/TOS (such as AES, VDI, and Line-A > routines) and interface these routines to the OS so that programs > which call these TOS routines often can use our faster routines > instead, like what the program "Turbo ST" is > trying to do. That is not exactly true. TOS is a combination of both 68000 assembly AND C code. True it is mostly C, but more and more is being replaced w/ assembler (TOS 1.4 is a good example). Dan
ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) (12/05/88)
In article <1252@atari.UUCP> danscott@atari.UUCP (Dan Scott) writes: > >That is not exactly true. TOS is a combination of both 68000 assembly AND >C code. True it is mostly C, but more and more is being replaced w/ >assembler (TOS 1.4 is a good example). > > >Dan ya, but how many people have TOS 1.4???? :-) (paraphrased from the author of the article who started this whole issue) i think that the author was referring to the TOS that most of us are stuck with!! did you read his TOS/2 article in Current Notes and pick up on any of his suggestions?? such as: code compatibility with the 68010/20, etc. -- Ignac A. Kolenko "Squeeze my lemon, let the juice run watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac down my leg!" - Led Zep (Lemon Song) "The main energizer's bypassed like a Christmas tree, so don't give me too many bumps!" - Scotty (ST:TWOK)
stephen@plx.UUCP (Stephen Heath ) (12/06/88)
In article <1252@atari.UUCP}, danscott@atari.UUCP (Dan Scott) writes: } in article <359@sdcc14.ucsd.edu>, cs64fba@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (TAI) says: } > Sender:pa1132@sdcc15.ucsd.edu via sdcc14.ucsd.edu } > Keywords:TOS, STOS, ST-LOG, 68000 } > } > Has anyone read the newest issue of ST-log? In an article } > concerning the X-former II (8-bit Atari Emulator) the author states } > that the TOS uses non-optimizing 68000 codes "everywhere". This } > must be one reason for GEM's slowness. Perhaps one approach } > currently for improving the ST is to write faster, more optimizing } > routines for components of GEM/TOS (such as AES, VDI, and Line-A } > routines) and interface these routines to the OS so that programs } > which call these TOS routines often can use our faster routines } > instead, like what the program "Turbo ST" is } > trying to do. } } That is not exactly true. TOS is a combination of both 68000 assembly AND } C code. True it is mostly C, but more and more is being replaced w/ } assembler (TOS 1.4 is a good example). } Dan And we all have a legal copy or any copy at all, don't we? :-) :-) Where can I get this fast bug free version? |=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=| | |Stephen Heath sun!plx!stephen | | | |My employer may choose or may not choose to (dis)agree, or both. | | |=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|
ralph@laas.laas.fr (Ralph P. Sobek) (12/16/88)
In article <1252@atari.UUCP>, danscott@atari.UUCP (Dan Scott) writes: | That is not exactly true. TOS is a combination of both 68000 assembly AND | C code. True it is mostly C, but more and more is being replaced w/ | assembler (TOS 1.4 is a good example). What a shame! They ain't got no real good C compilers in these here parts? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Ralph P. Sobek Disclaimer: The above ruminations are my own. ralph@laas.laas.fr Addresses are ordered by importance. ralph@lasso.uucp, or ...!uunet!mcvax!lasso!ralph If all else fails, try: SOBEK@FRMOP11.BITNET sobek@eclair.Berkeley.EDU