Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:23 pm
by Raven
As MacOS X is mainly a linux
Unix based (FreeBSD to be exact). Your not going to get a Linux 1:1 Command structure i'm afraid, but if you add MacOSX then be sure to add Unix at the same time.
Adding the PowerPC Processors as well as Big-Endian/Little-Endian Encoding should extend the core functionality of the compiler.
Particularly for the AmigaOS people.
It might be a better idea to take the time to change the structure of the compiler, so that it compiles processor target code + you can compile your own binary template which it can use.
The library functions obviously would still be system based, but it would open the language + compiler itself to any OS people can provide the binary template too
meaning OS Devvers would have a BASIC language which would be compatible from the get go.
just an idea of course
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:03 pm
by Dare2
Raven wrote:just an idea of course
Sounds like a good one.
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:43 pm
by blueznl
Not all, but most
at least shanarra is developing a fine sense of humour
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:10 am
by Karbon
Not all, but most
After finding out things are quite different here then the norm, it takes a very long time to get used to......
Obviously you haven't found it that difficult. I think you just like complaining
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:31 am
by PolyVector
Maybe Shannara uses a translater developed by angry programmers, did you ever think of that?
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:25 am
by Shannara
Me, complain? No way! After all, it's in the "book of life". Thous shalt complain.
Besides, Altavista is a bad translater to english
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:13 am
by Fred
Raven wrote:As MacOS X is mainly a linux
It might be a better idea to take the time to change the structure of the compiler, so that it compiles processor target code + you can compile your own binary template which it can use.
It shouldn't be difficult to add such functionnality (I guess you mean 'cross-compiling') as the compiler structure allow this. All the processor functions can be virtualized so you could switch the code generation at runtine. The problem will be to find an assembler for 680x0, PPC and x86 which works on every computer, and a linker. Probably the GNU tools are a good start but I don't like the GNU ASM (as) which doesn't follow INTEL rules.
cross-compilation
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:31 pm
by USCode
It shouldn't be difficult to add such functionnality (I guess you mean 'cross-compiling') as the compiler structure allow this.
Cross-compilation would be very handy, RealBasic offers this, but I wouldn't consider it critical as you still have to have the target machine available to test the executable. IMHO.
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:36 pm
by Raven
I'd say take NASM/TASM and alter it to your needs both are open source, and it should be simple enough to edit them up per processor.
OSDever.net might have some cross-platform, can't remember though.
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:12 pm
by freak
LOTR war moved here
viewtopic.php?t=11351
Timo
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:40 pm
by USCode
LOTR war moved here
Yeah, how'd my PB OS X thread get hijacked?!?!
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:57 pm
by tinman
Raven wrote:should be simple enough to edit them up per processor.
Aren't both x86 only? Fred doesn't want to be writing assemblers at the same time as PB (well, maybe he does but I guess he has enough work :)
He could try enquiring about the assemblers and linkers used by
vbcc as there's something there for many processors but I don't know whether they're all different on each platform.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:10 am
by jack
