Re: A89: Suggestion: A simple C compiler


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A89: Suggestion: A simple C compiler




Couldn't a library be made to comply with the TI-BASIC form of calling, as well as asm calling?
What I mean is something like:
filelib(#of_function[,parameters])
so reading a file could be like:
filelib(1,name_of_folder,name_of_file)
and writing could be similar:
filelib(2,name_of_folder,name_of_file,type_of_file)

In the writing case, the type of file could be one of the TIs specified file types, or binary.
(which would show up as ASM in the VAR-LINK menu)

-Miles Raymond      EML: m_rayman@bigfoot.com
ICQ: 13217756       IRC: Killer2        AIM: M_RayMan32
http://www.bigfoot.com/~m_rayman/

-----Original Message-----
From: Nate Mueller <nlmueller@students.wisc.edu>
To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Friday, December 18, 1998 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: A89: Suggestion: A simple C compiler


>>In a message dated 17/12/98 15:28:28 Pacific Standard Time,
>>m_rayman@bigfoot.com writes:
>>
>>> And all of this isn't even touching compiling times on the ~10Mhz
>>processor...
>>
>>Who cares how slow it is... do you know how I long to program ASM (or even C)
>>during class??
>
>If people want to work on asm, I _almost_ have something.  I wrote a MIPS
>RISC assembly emulator during class last week, but it's quite slow.  The
>other problem is that to speed it up, I store instructions in a matrix, the
>operation and each operand all in different elements.  It's a real pain in
>the ass to program, but I bet someone could think of a better interface.
>Of course if you accept a slowdown of over 100% I could alwaus work around
>it...
>
>I'll switch it over to 68k and post it after finals, if enough people
>really want it.
>
>Just a side note:  I think that this an ideal usage of BASIC.  If you wrote
>an emulator in asm you would not only have to deal with the parsing, but
>you would have to do _all_ the error handling yourself.  In BASIC you
>sacrafise speed (which is actually better for debugging) but the built in
>BASIC error handling takes care of all the hard stuff.  One thing that
>would make a BASIC emulator much better though would be an asm function --
>using filelib -- that would let you do file reading inside a BASIC program.
>Maybe a pipe dream...
>
> --Nate


Follow-Ups: