Re: [cc65] Latest Snapshot - Apple II

From: Bill Buckels <bbuckels1mymts.net>
Date: 2014-05-16 19:55:16
Luke Coletti wrote:
>Can you send me the links to the sites you mention below?

Hi Luke,

The AppleX distribution contains some of the stuff:

http://www.aztemuseum.com

I have the source from many of their compilers here and there and many other 
unpublished works or work that I have posted on Usenet in csa2 over the last 
year or so.

>Interested in your Aztec compiler work, although I'm not clear on what 
>exactly you're trying to do. I'd be interested in hearing more.

I am working-out the porting details to take everything in the Aztec C 
compilers that is not in cc65 and make it fit with Oliver's work.

I am really big on examples and levering platform specific functionality, 
and providing utilities for porting of graphics and other fun stuff.

So clearly this is outside the scope of a C compiler.

I am also big on blog-style tutorials... if a compiler has a poke macro it 
better be poking at something that's fun. Aztec C is broken and old. It is 
no fun anymore. A PSIX compliant modern compiler with perks would be a 
better home for what I learned to do with Aztec C.

But I am still looking at what cc65 has done and what I can make it do. It 
is built around a core I am adjusting to and I am having a hard time 
understanding how to map memory using linker config files to open-up the 
Apple II's memory map for SYS programs that do not hide themselves in every 
available hole right at the moment.

Since I both learn and tech by example, I need to write full applications, 
and don't much care for code snippets and the usual terse examples provided 
by typical compiler documentation. I hope this does not make me any less of 
a man:)

I like to knock together programs in a couple of seconds and I doubt if I am 
alone. The cc65 compiler can do that... better than Aztec C ever could. But 
not for me in its current state so I am coding every chance I get to change 
that. It generally takes me from 3 to 6 months to adapt a compiler for my 
nefarious purposes for a particular OS or platform, and perhaps a year or 
two to get some cools utilities and stuff out there.

I don't write OS's but I sure as heck like to write apps that use them. At 
the end of the day it all amounts to the same. How I get there has always 
been pretty simple. I take things apart to see how they work, then I see 
what's missing, and add it. I generally don't put any restrictions on the 
use of my work and don't ask for attribution.  This linker config info is 
important to me at the moment for a mass port. I can't get hung-up on how 
the compiler sees my world.

Oliver has a well-thought out structure for making system calls to ProDOS on 
the Apple IIe MLI (Machine Language Interface) which lends itself strongly 
to casting a structure to make this more C-like for me. Hopefully for others 
if any exist who want the same thing.

Very small part of it. I haven't even looked at Overlays yet to see if I 
like them. Or how I will change them or make them fit into my view if I 
don't.

Dicussion of what I am doing doesn't seem appropriate for Oliver's list 
since he has already tried to bend it to his way of thinking. So I will 
likely not worry about that until the time comes when my cc65 work gets some 
fun results.

Some cc65 stuff is on this site too:

http://www.appleoldies.ca/azgraphics33/index.htm

And some graphics stuff:

http://www.appleoldies.ca/graphics/index.htm

For my Commodore stuff:

http://www.c64classics.ca/

For my CP/M stuff:

http://www.cpm8680.com/

I won't mention my MS-DOS stuff.

cc65 is part of my lifeline to the future to preserve the fun of the old 
days on newer computers. Like I said, the Aztec C stuff is broken now as we 
move forward. The only truly available port is cc65. When I backed-off 5 
years ago, I wasn't ready. For the last year I prepared for the goal. But 
the perspective is hardly the same as cc65's installed base and developers 
although many of our goals are common in the end. I couldn't care less what 
is put in a repository once I learn a tool. I am perfectly capable of 
rolling my own without much destruction and order, so trust me to not 
re-invent the wheel.

The cc65 calling convention is beautifully designed. After Aztec C I simply 
hate the stack overhead so fastcall is a welcome relief. The information 
hiding is a little hard for me to agree with. Marrying the two is easier 
than in Aztec C where we didn't have a choice.

Oliver's decompsition of the ProDOS System calls is true art but I think 
some are missing. cc65's lack of support for DOS 3.3 File I/O needs to be 
fixed. I am sure I can do that and add floating point support as well.

I also have some thoughts on how the various shell programs for the Apple II 
can use cc65 for a better and quicker alternative to the old Aztec C and 
other shell's:

http://www.appleoldies.ca/

Reducing my expectations to low common denominators doesn't do it for me. 
But cross-development on modern computers in C is the way to go forward from 
the old junk that keeps breaking.

Bill

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Fri May 16 19:55:34 2014

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2014-05-16 19:55:36 CEST