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]
dood just give up. with what u say below it has no point. you are talking
about ram, ram is NOT built onto the rom and does NOT have anything to do
with what we are talking about. i was saying that the z80 can use c, just
like any other processor. and yes i know the gameboy is different than the
ti in architecture. i stated that before. but i bet the macintosh that had a
68k also had a timer on the motherboard, ram, a disk drive, probably even a
math coprocessor, that is the same thing that youre trying to tell me why a
gameboy isnt a good example... i hope this will lay this dumbass topic to
rest because i think everyone is gettin sick of this discussion about using
a c compiler in an ASSEMBLY list
> Now your confusing the point. The difference between a viable use and
> possible are two different things. Plus the fact we aren't referring
> to the Gameboy or a Z80-based sound control unit. Nintendo added a
> special GPU that meant less cycles on the Z80 would be wasted for
> graphics, and dumping it onto the GPU, speeding up the code, not to
> mention you don't have a makeshift OS locking down 32k of RAM, and
> only 8k is useful for your program, and one of the shiftable 16k
> blocks is needed for all your calls to the OS. This leaves you with a
> grand total of 24k in the 86's case. NOT enough for an extensive C
> program. Gameboy is perfect for small-end gaming, and can use C,
> since all the code is stored on a ROM chip, which has been known to
> size in at around 1MB+ on CGB carts. Plus the RAM available on the GB
> unit itself, this means that a C program has PLENTY of room. Also,
> sound control is really just a BIOS that runs on the chip. I could
> easily go out and use a PIC microcontroller with a handmade C
> compiler to get the same result. There is overhead associated with
> any system, and if you use C to write that system, you only have to
> worry about your own code, rather than a system written by someone
> else as well.
> come a really long way, but the Z80-based TI calc is just not
> considered a viable C platform right now. If someone were to make a
> C/Asm hybrid compiler that didn't HAVE to do all that much
> optimizing, and spend very little time for optimizing... it would get
and its not a good platform to use c on because there isnt a 'good'
compiler that implements the so godlike c language set to a T. thats why
most ppl prefer to use a real language to get the job done.
> my vote... Hell, if I get the time, I will take my CORE compiler that
> I never finished and convert it into something that can create Z80
> code.
you should do that and see how effecient you can get it
References: