Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:18582 comp.sys.mac.programmer:1743
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!enea!tut!santra!jmunkki
From: jmunkki@santra.HUT.FI (Juri Munkki)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long)
Message-ID: <14809@santra.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 88 18:21:00 GMT
References: <7215@cup.portal.com> <14534@santra.UUCP> <419@dbase.UUCP>
Sender: jmunkki@santra.UUCP
Reply-To: jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 25

In article <419@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes:
>If you want to put inline assembler in your C programs, can't you just
>hand-assemble the bytes to define bytes and include them, instead?  Or

Would you do this? I don't think you would.

Since an inline assembler is relatively easy to write and adding 68881
instructions would probably have involved changing code so that it
handles FP constants and registers (no new addressing modes) and then
making a few additions to a table of commands (I assume that the
ASM mnemonics are stored this way).

The worst problem would probably have been testing. You have to test
every possible command and combination to verify that the code is correct.
You also have to have some pretty advanced beta testers for stuff like this.

I still hope there will soon be a new release with an improved asm. I also
hope it will be distributed either for free or through computer networks
as an upgrade program.

Juri Munkki			|					(,:
jmunkki@santra.hut.fi		|	Maybe some day:			(,;
jmunkki@fingate.bitnet		|		jmunkki@pizza.hut.fi	{,:

P.S.  Has anyone thought of user-extensible compilers?