grae@murdu.OZ (Graeme Gerrard) (02/21/89)
Anybody know whether there is a version of THINK C around that uses the 68030/68882 of IIx and SE/30. Is there one planned, any idea when it's due? Thanks in Advance Graeme Gerrard Faculty of Music University of Melbourne AUSTRALIA
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (02/23/89)
In article <1524@murdu.OZ> grae@murdu.OZ (Graeme Gerrard) writes: >Anybody know whether there is a version of THINK C >around that uses the 68030/68882 of IIx and SE/30. >Is there one planned, any idea when it's due? The current version of LightspeedC generates code for the 68020 (long multiply/divide, bitfields), which is upward-compatible with the 68030, and for the 68881, which identical in object format to the 68882. LightspeedC currently doesn't support the PMMU instructions on the 68030, but a future version may support it in the inline assembler. [Note that the ONLY software difference between the 68020 and the 68030 is the set of PMMU instructions.] --Rich Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305
holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (02/24/89)
In article <1524@murdu.OZ> grae@murdu.OZ (Graeme Gerrard) writes: >Anybody know whether there is a version of THINK C >around that uses the 68030/68882 of IIx and SE/30. >Is there one planned, any idea when it's due? Is a new version necessary? Shouldn't the code that LSC generates for the 68020/68881 be compatible with the 68030/68882? Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. hollander@ti.com The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
paco@oakhill.UUCP (Paco) (02/25/89)
In article <1253@husc6.harvard.edu>, siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) writes: > In article <1524@murdu.OZ> grae@murdu.OZ (Graeme Gerrard) writes: > >Anybody know whether there is a version of THINK C > >around that uses the 68030/68882 of IIx and SE/30. > >Is there one planned, any idea when it's due? > > The current version of LightspeedC generates code for the 68020 > (long multiply/divide, bitfields), which is upward-compatible with the 68030, > and for the 68881, which identical in object format to the 68882. > > LightspeedC currently doesn't support the PMMU instructions on the > 68030, but a future version may support it in the inline assembler. > > [Note that the ONLY software difference between the 68020 and the 68030 > is the set of PMMU instructions.] > > --Rich > > Rich Siegel > Staff Software Developer > THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Actually, there's more to the software differences than just PMMU instructions. The MC68030 implements a subset of the MC68851 PMMU functionality and drops a couple other opcodes out of the MC68020 instruction set: CALLM Save current module state on stack; Load new module state from destination RTM Reload saved module state from stack The data cache on the 030 might also change the way a bus trace looks... All totaled, people writting in LSC (yours truly included) won't feel these differences. paco. ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- Macintosh Software Developer Motorola Microprocessor Division Austin, Texas email: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!devsys!paco paco @ Generic BBS 201/389-8473 disclaimer: author is (ir)responsible for all statements author-of: Menstat, CS-1 @ Stanford, MacGroup @ AT&T, Satori Emulator... quote: "Killing a bush with one's hand is better than getting stoned with two birds." - Suzanne Nathan