[Coco] Re: CoCo needs?

[John R. Hogerhuis]

On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 21:21 -0500, KnudsenMJ at aol.com wrote:
>  In a message dated 3/8/05 2:45:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, james at skwirl.ca  
> writes:
> 
> >A  working, modern-machine-hosted C compiler. :) Easier said than done,  of
> >course. That's, as far as I'm concerned, the only thing holding back  CoCo
> >software development. As much work as it is to learn C, assembly's  even
> >harder.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I don't say anything useless (again :-) could you guys remind me  
> which of the following are the major problem/issue with the current Microware  
> OS-9 C compiler, plus all of our own enhancements:
>  
> 1.  It runs old fashioned K&R C (our add-ons help with this, and  so what?)

ANSI C or C99 is better. Would be nice to have bitfields, etc.

>  
> 2.  It can't take advantage of 6309 native mode instructions (a biggie  for 
> Nitro fuelers)

I don't care about this.

>  
> 3.  It only runs under OS-9, and AFAIK generates code usable only  under OS-9 
> (though you could link in a BASIC oriented library)


It is targeted at generating OS-9 executables, so I'd definitely
consider that a limitation. 

If someone were to come up with some instructions for using the OS-9 C
Compiler to generate loadable RS-DOS executables, that would be helpful.

>  
> 4.  It isn't part of an IDE (this is a DIS-advantage??)
>  

Yeah, I agree, who cares. The work on sdcc won't produce an IDE either
though, just a compiler.


> 5. It only runs on the Coco (but doesn't it run much faster on a PC Coco  
> emulator?  With all the PC support tools we have now, does it need to run  
> "native PC Windows?")
>  

Yes I don't think it matters whether it runs under the emulator or not.

> Tremendous things have been done with the existing C system -- should we be  
> wasting the best talent trying to forge slightly better tools, instead of  
> working on apps?  ISTR this argument being raised 10 and 15 years  ago.
>  

This is always the case with programmers. Tools we understand and need
so we tend to work on them first. I remember hearing this is a complaint
against Coco and later, Linux. Truth was, there have always been usable
and good applications around for both.


> Sorry if this sounds argumentative, but I'm confused here.  Remind me  why we 
> need another C compiler.  Thanks, Mike K.
>  
> 

Well I think we do need a *better* C Compiler. My understanding is that
the OS-9 Compiler isn't all that smart. At least if sdcc is made to
work, we'll have something that we can fix if it's broken, since we'll
have the source code. Plus it benefits an open source project so we
might get help from beyond this community (wouldn't count on it
though). 

Running under Linux or Windows is important though. Under the emulator
is OK as long as someone can make the C Compiler accessible from the
bash or cmd prompt. Then we're in business.

But making sdcc 'Just Work' is the ideal outcome if folks have the
cycles to spare.


-- John.