Re: A86: What C-compilers have we got? [82/83/83+/85/86]
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A86: What C-compilers have we got? [82/83/83+/85/86]
> on RAM page 0 space for Asm programs, and the fact that the z80 has
> only two registers with which to do math, and an extremely poor
> instruction set compared to the 68k (I am a tad fuzzy on my 68k Asm,
> as I have switched to using PPC-based hardware), which also has a
you cant even put them in the same class together, its like comparing a mac
with a pc, each has its own architecture and where the instruction sets were
lacking in z80 there are include files to make up for it. if you used the
68k compiler for ppc then youd know that there are a lot of routines that
dont come standard on the 68k chip...this is called the rom...if ur using it
for ppc then ur using windows ce in your calls so that is out and beyond the
68k chip and has nothing to do with what you are talking about...and by the
way all processors have a breaking point for how much they can allocate to
run, on a ppc you will find this much higher because it is actually meant to
be a portable computer. the ti8x is not meant to be one. ti gave the users
and opportunity to have more power on their calcs (after the previous ones
were hacked) but its not meant to be as souped up as a ppc. also for the
ti92/89, the fargo include files use a lot of routines that werent put into
the rom but that were needed for games, etc so they were included in the
fargo kernel or the libraries.
> much better set of registers with which to do math. With I believe at
> least 8-12 address and 8-12 data registers, one can do a lot more
addresses? what do u mean by that? do u mean storage space for floating
point numbers...ie OP1-6 or what? if theres a lack of 'addresses' then that
can be changed by copying the 11bytes to another location til u need it
again
> little things add up: 89/92/92+ is capable of handling a C-like
> language... the other 8x calcs are just not as capable as the
> 68k-based calcs, and don't have the ability to handle a C compiler
> without rather large and hefty overhead.
the only reason for this is that noone has made a c compiler that is
efficient enough for ppl that cant handle a real language like z80 asm and
have to revert to c when they know so much about 68k op codes and such :)
and anyone that knows how to use the opcodes for the 8x calcs can damn well
dup the same program onto the 68k and vice versa...when ur dealing with the
speed of asm then it doesnt matter for these differences...look at the vast
library of all the games that are on calcs under both processors...
Follow-Ups:
References: