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