Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!orsvax1!pyrnj!caip!lll-crg!lll-lcc!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc6!calmasd!jnp From: jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) Newsgroups: net.micro.cpm Subject: Re: req. C compiler Message-ID: <1845@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> Date: Wed, 23-Apr-86 11:48:12 EDT Article-I.D.: calmasd.1845 Posted: Wed Apr 23 11:48:12 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 27-Apr-86 05:30:43 EDT References: <85@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3362@mnetor.UUCP> Organization: G.E. CALMA R&D, San Diego, CA Lines: 66 Summary: further info on MIX-C In article <3362@mnetor.UUCP>, clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > In article <85@brl-smoke.ARPA> Ghenis.pasa@xerox.ARPA writes: > >Small-C is cute, but non-standard. For as little as $39.95 you can get > >MIX-C, which claims to be full K&R standard compatible, and comes with a > >400 page manual and tutorial (a very good value, in my opinion). The > >tradeoff is it doesn't produce very efficient code. There are other C > >compilers for CP/M for under $100, see magazines like Byte, Dr. Dobbs, > >etc for ads. If you're interested in learning about compilers, Q/C comes > >with full source for itself written in C ($99 for the whole package). > > I think you're confusing "Small-C" with "Tiny-C". Tiny-C isn't really C, > its syntax is rather different. If I recall correctly, Tiny-C was an > interpretive language, and about the first thing even close to C on the > market for micros. I think that it came without machine-readable media, > and you had to type in the interpreter code (but I may be completely out > of wack). I think that it was the first package Lifeboat ever distributed. > > Small-C V1.0 was written by Ron Cain, complete sources including bare-bones > 8080 run-time support were published in Dr. Dobbs about 4-5 years ago. Dr. Dobbs' now offers the "latest and greatest" Small-C source on disk for around $30. And the documentation in book form for even less. > It's syntax was *almost* completely compatible with C (only a minor bitch > than one "indirection"), and a few other minor glitches (eg: missing all > of the assignment operators except "=" etc.). New version has all assignment operators, and multiple indirection. > It was a fairly impressive achievment even so - Ron Cain had obviously > never seen a compiler before (eg: it had no true "scanner" - which would have > speeded it up rather drastically), and, inspite of the drastic subsetting, > could compile itself rather handily - on a single SSSD 8" CPM disk! > > Small-C didn't optimize the output (assembler by the way) at all. Does so now - with a pee-hole optimizer compile-time option. [ a bunch of stuff deleted ...] > Regarding Q/C and MIX-C: unless my memory is completely faulty, *both* > of these compilers *are* (or were) Small-C, but greatly extended. I'm > absolutely certain Q/C is (which is why it's so cheap and why source > is released). Both of them have been extended at least as far as > structs/unions, but not floating point (I think). I would imagine that > they don't optimize much either. Q/C has an optional MATHPAK which extends the spec to include floating point. It does handle structures, but not unions (I think), and definately not bit fields. MIX is a full blown - K&R C, structs, unions, floating point - the whole shebang. It is not a fast compiler, nor does it produce very tight code, but it is far and away the cheapest full C compiler on the market. [more editing...] ===================================================================== = These opinions are mine, all mine and nothing but mine. = = They in no way reflect the opinions of my employer. = = = = John Pantone ...{ucbvax | decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp = = GE/Calma jnp@calmasd.UUCP = = 9805 Scranton Rd. (619) 587-3125 = = San Diego CA 92121 = =====================================================================