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]
>
>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.
So you are saying that I can't compare two processors based on the
differences in their instruction sets as well as the available data
bus, BECAUSE of those differences? I fully realize that one cannot
compare the 68k/Z80 with the PPC, but that wasn't the point. But the
68k was designed to go in the first Macs (128k/512k models) and was
quite capable of handling C and other higher level languages. Heck,
the OS was written in Pascal! The reason why C faulters on the Z80 is
because of the lack of registers and addressable memory. Rule of
thumb is: the more registers you can use for math, the less push/pop
ops get used, and your code can actually be SMALLER (although this is
not commonly thought of) compared to one without those registers. I
myself am bound to the endless push/pop when I am trying to track 6-7
16-bit values on my 86, something I never had a problem with on the
68k.
>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
No, I am referring to the actual registers located on the CPU. the
Z80 has: A, F, H, L, B, C, D, E (and these can be paired up), IX, IY,
SP, PC and a couple internal ones you aren't even supposed to know
about. However, the 68k chips have A0-Ax and D0-Dx, where X is the
number of data/address registers minus one. As I said, I believe this
is somewhere from 8-12, maybe more...
>
>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...
I was talking about why C isn't used on the Z80, and I think you have
gotten a bit confused by my comment. C isn't being used on the Z80
because of the limitations that the Z80 and TI imposes on memory and
CPU speed. 6Mhz is just a tad low for a high-level language
(obviously apparent, even in BASIC) to operate at 'acceptable'
realtime speeds without size overhead. Also, since the Z80 is limited
to 64k addressable at any one time (which the 68k is NOT limited to)
and since TI has 32k of that in use, you can really only use around
24k of runtime space, very constraining for something like C.
Interesting points, but I am going to have to ask that you read a
little more carefully and try not to confuse the subject by taking
small references that have nothing to do with the topic and start
comparing... It just makes the muddy waters worse. Thanks.
-Krev
--
----
"Science describes how our universe reacts in a mathematical
representation of it, but can be described in regular terms. These
terms seem to infringe on Religion's role of describing the creation,
and once Science finds a clue to the creation, Religion declares
Science a heretic. Religion scolds Science, telling it to stick to
doing what it does best. To this, Science laughs and complies, going
after the creation once again. Wouldn't it be fair to listen to the
fact that these humans could have been a product of the Creator just
as we are, Borak?" - Cyander, Day for the Xenith: Xenith Dawn
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Follow-Ups:
References: