Re: cc65 competition?

[Bill Buckels <bbuckels@escape.ca>]

On Apr 12, 7:26 pm, Harry Potter <maspethro...@aol.com> wrote:
> > How about the C64??? Harry what are you doing with overlays? OK and
> > did you look at the memory map that I am using with Aztec C?
>
> Er, what *is* the C64 memory map used by Aztec C C64?

Generally I create a an explicit hole with the linker and push the
code and data past the graphics screen area, embed the graphics screen
directly into that area, embed a bitmapped font and graphics cursors
below that area etc.

I also do the same on the Apple II.

I use and provide (FREE) programs for both the Apple IIe and C64 Aztec
C Cross-Compilers that embed title screens into memory holes and load
fonts into these holes etc.

Read the following articles:

Adding Graphics and Fonts to a Compiled C64 Program

http://landover.no-ip.com/forums/index.php?topic=2241.0

Adding Title Screen and Graphics Cursors to a Compiled Apple IIe
ProDOS 8 Program

http://landover.no-ip.com/forums/index.php?topic=2241.msg8981#msg8981

>
> > I am creating holes where I want them and all that... I hardly think
> > the program code itself is large. Perhaps my load address, base
> > address, and what I am reserving for data is what you are reacting to.
> > How do you like what I am doing with the graphics compression and
> > such?
>

You had better read this one too... or the entire thread.

KOALA Paint and Other Bitmapped Graphics in Aztec C64

http://landover.no-ip.com/forums/index.php?topic=2243.0

> Do you include *every* function in a library, or just the necessary
> ones?  cc65 seems to include justb the necessary ones, although some
> fat (i.e. the initmainargs assembler function, which processes the
> command line, shortened to pushing two NULLs on the stack) could still
> be cut.
>

The linker for any C compiler that I have ever used and there have
been many, explicitly links. You and I do not make that choice. Every
function is not included. That would be like DLL hell that these
Windows Mousemasters (myself included) have inflicted on us all in the
name of GUI interfaces.

All that a library is, is a bunch of object modules that are linked in
one at a time. You mentioned in some other email that you wanted to
use a list of object modules. Put those in a library. The command line
used to be much shorter but even now we use link libraries.

If you need a refresher on libraries and Aztec C go here:

LIBRARY MANAGEMENT and Libutil in Aztec C

http://landover.no-ip.com/forums/index.php?topic=2242.msg8982.0

> I want to compile a simple Hello, World!" program with just one
> printf() function and see how it works.

The guys that created these compilers were very smart men with lots of
compiler design knowledge and understanding. They knew how a linker
works obviously since they wrote the darned thing. They knew how an
optimizer works. Etc. THEY set the standards that you and I follow
today.

Try this link Too. Compiler Design by Alan Holub etc.

http://lua-users.org/wiki/CompilerWritingReferences

I had a look at what BlackJack was saying about program size. All C
compilers need start-up code and stack handling code and so forth...

Now with Aztec C you have the option of tweaking any of this and
redoing the libraries. Most of us don't think we're so darned clever
that we could of course and prefer to tweak our own code.

The beauty of the assembly pass is that you can optimize anything you
wish.

But choosing to use printf as the basis for a small functional program
is not what I would call a good test either (like BJ said already)...

I would need to rummage around alot in the compiler and tear apart
some libraries and so forth to trim this down to a special purpose
thing and I am not in the mood to do that right at the moment. What I
am in the mood to do is to try to get permission for the public domain
release of Aztec-C.

This may backfire on me and I may be told to take down my website, but
I am as ready as I'll ever be.

Have Fun Now!

Bill