Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!tekgen!tekigm!phils
From: phils@tekigm.UUCP (Phil Staub)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: C compilers; request for info
Message-ID: <1069@tekigm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Dec-86 01:56:27 EST
Article-I.D.: tekigm.1069
Posted: Mon Dec 15 01:56:27 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 20:46:27 EST
References: <795@ulowell.UUCP> <9776@sun.uucp> <248@sbcs.UUCP> <1056@tekigm.UUCP> <251@sbcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: phils@tekigm.UUCP (Phil Staub)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 97

In article <251@sbcs.UUCP> root@sbcs.UUCP (Root) writes:
>Phil Staub writes:
>> First is the questionable legality of putting the Manx library on a machine
>> other than that for which the compiler was bought. 
>Perhaps I am mistaken, but the real issue is whether Manx charges a
>royalty for use of their C library.  
Actually, what I had in mind was the legality of compiling the *source* for
the Manx library on a machine other than the one licensed, with the intent of
building a library on that machine which could be used to generate Amiga
executables.

>  As to the
>other issue, that of their development system being purchased for the
>Amiga and then actually residing on the Sun, well simply tell them
>that the license for use is to be assigned to the Sun.
I still want to retain the rights to use the compiler on my Amiga, for two
reasons: first, the Amiga is mine. The Gould on which I would potentially be
generating code is not. I have no qualms about spending my bucks on my
computer, but I refuse to do so for the Gould. Second, I seriously doubt I 
could get my company to spring for it, since I, as an Amiga owner, am in a
distinct minority, and I am not using it in my development work.

>> The second pertains to what your development environment is. If you are able
>> to develop code which can be quickly downloaded to the Amiga, that's one
>I don't download to the Amiga - I use NFS to run the programs directly from
>the Amiga.
I think my point has been made here. My Amiga is at home, connected to the
machine on which the GreenHills compiler runs by modem *only*. If I had the
NFS option, I would undoubtedly be doing just what you are doing.

>> This brings it down to which compiler generates better code.
>"Better" code (smaller, I think you meant) is _a_ reason, but there are
>more important factors:
>
>	1)  The Manx compiler system was (is?) buggy.  
Notice my comment about "when Manx writes the right code". I should have
said "generates" instead of "writes".

>	2)  The Manx compiler system utilities crashed quite a bit.  `make'
>	    crashes were particularly annoying.
This may depend upon what you mean by 'crashed'. If you mean "don't work quite 
as documented", or maybe even "don't produce proper results", I would agree. 
I found the librarian in 3.20a to be my biggest headache. On the other
hand, if you mean "crash the machine", I can only think of one example, and, 
yes, it was with 'make'.

>	3)  Long compilation/link times.
Agreed. I, too, wish I had a hard disk or lots of ram.

>	4)  A set of floppy disks could not hold all the object/binaries needed
>	    (last count about 7 mBytes src/object).
I believe I commented that if I were to ever work on a project as large as you 
describe, I would have to make other arrangements than Amiga-native compilation.

>	5)  Sun comp. sys is as "Unix like" a compiler (e.g. has enums,
>	    better structure handling, etc) a compiler as you're likely 
>	    to find for the Amiga.
>	6)  The Sun comp. sys has truly optimized code, e.g. strength
>	    reduction in array indices, common subexpression elimination,
>	    branch tail reduction, etc, etc.  
>	7)  Superior development environment available in Unix.  I like
>	    SCCS, vi, a "real" make, yacc, lex, etc available in Unix.
>	    All of the above are "standard equipment" in the $400 Sun 
>	    Unix release.
I don't have access to a 680x0-based Unix box. That's why I talk about
the GreenHills cross-compiler. GreenHills, although good, could hardly be
expected to be as solidly supported as a native compiler. For example,
the GreenHills compiler we are using doesn't even have an assembler and
linker. It had to be combined with an assembler/linker/librarian package
from Oasys. 

On point 5, these items are supposed to be improved in the "next" Manx 
release.

>	8)  We needed the option of generating true 68020 code at some
>	    point in the future.  
I may be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that the next "real" 
release of Manx will do this.

>> GreenHills compiler is that (unless there's a switch I don't know about) it
>> doesn't generate PC relative code for anything. It's all absolute.
>Granted that the Sun system cannot generate index register data
>references, however, they can generate PC relative code references.  
Again, I'm not talking about Sun, I'm talking GreenHills, which I still
maintain does not have the capability of generating PC relative code.

>PS.  Don't totally misinterpret my position Re: Manx - I feel that it is
>     the finest compiler system available for small 68000 systems today.
I agree. 

Thanks for your comments.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Staub              tektronix!tekigm!phils    (206) 253-5634
Tektronix, Inc., ISI Engineering
P.O.Box 3500, M/S C1-904, Vancouver, Washington  98668