dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) (07/19/90)
Well, I've got GNUPLOT working fine now. I am very impressed with the
Topspeed compiler. GNUPLOT.EXE tips the scales at 147K; the executable
that is packed with the archive was 296K as generated by Turbo C! When
I include full debugging code (including null pointer checking, stack
overflow checking, and source debugger support), it goes up to 180K.
Has anyone built this with MSC? How does it compare?
To get GNUPLOT to compile, I had to:
1. Change the 'matherr' routine name to something else to avoid a
conflict with a library routine of the same name, and add code
to the start of main() to enable this error handler.
2. Create a *.h file for each *.asm file, which declares each of
the assembler routines as requiring C calling conventions.
3. Change the declaration of the line drawing function pointer
in the PC_putc routine of 'pc.trm' to force C calling format.
I assembled all the *.asm files with turbo assembler. If you want more
details, E-mail me.
-David Hinds
dhinds@popserver.stanford.edujpd@pc.usl.edu (Dugal James P.) (07/19/90)
In article <1990Jul18.171005.8884@portia.Stanford.EDU> dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) writes: >Well, I've got GNUPLOT working fine now. I am very impressed with the >Topspeed compiler. GNUPLOT.EXE tips the scales at 147K; the executable David, does the 'replot' command work just after a 'plot' command? My Turbo-C 2.0 compiled version just exits when I try it. Has anyone else seen this behaviour? -- -- James Dugal, N5KNX Internet: jpd@usl.edu Associate Director Ham packet: n5knx@k5arh Computing Center US Mail: PO Box 42770 Lafayette, LA 70504 University of Southwestern LA. Tel. 318-231-6417 U.S.A.
ganzer@cod.NOSC.MIL (Mark T. Ganzer) (07/19/90)
In article <1990Jul18.171005.8884@portia.Stanford.EDU> dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) writes: >Well, I've got GNUPLOT working fine now. I am very impressed with the >Topspeed compiler. GNUPLOT.EXE tips the scales at 147K; the executable >that is packed with the archive was 296K as generated by Turbo C! When Did you use the same drivers that were used in the Turbo-C makefile? The version I downloaded from SIMTEL has an executable size of 204K and was compiled with Turbo-C, but has a smaller set of output drivers. -- Mark T. Ganzer Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego UUCP: {bonnie,sdcsvax,gould9,hp-sdd} - !nosc!ganzer {apl-uw,ncr-sd,bang,crash } / Internet: ganzer@nosc.mil Compu$erve: 73617,442
ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) (07/19/90)
In article <2005@cod.NOSC.MIL> ganzer@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (Mark T. Ganzer) writes: }In article <1990Jul18.171005.8884@portia.Stanford.EDU> dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) writes: }>Well, I've got GNUPLOT working fine now. I am very impressed with the }>Topspeed compiler. GNUPLOT.EXE tips the scales at 147K; the executable }>that is packed with the archive was 296K as generated by Turbo C! When } }Did you use the same drivers that were used in the Turbo-C makefile? The }version I downloaded from SIMTEL has an executable size of 204K and was }compiled with Turbo-C, but has a smaller set of output drivers. Also, compiling with debugger info generally comes pretty close to doubling the size of the executable. -- {backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/3.1 BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask DISCLAIMER? Did | Everything is funny as long as it is happening to I claim something?| someone else. --Will Rogers
dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) (07/21/90)
In article <9951@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes: >In article <2005@cod.NOSC.MIL> ganzer@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (Mark T. Ganzer) writes: >}Did you use the same drivers that were used in the Turbo-C makefile? The >}version I downloaded from SIMTEL has an executable size of 204K and was >}compiled with Turbo-C, but has a smaller set of output drivers. When I compile with the PC, HERCULES, CORONA, EPSON, POSTSCRIPT, HPGL, HP75, ATT6300, and DXY800A drivers (all the ones in the TC makefile), the resulting executable is 151185 bytes. If I compile with only the PC and POSTSCRIPT drivers, and turn on 80386 code generation, I get 144581 bytes. >Also, compiling with debugger info generally comes pretty close to doubling >the size of the executable. I think the 296K TC figure is with debugging information; the 204K, I assume, is with debugging turned off. Oh - someone else asked if REPLOT works. It seems to work fine with my executable. -David Hinds dhinds@popserver.stanford.edu