RFC-In-Reply-To: 

RFC-Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 11:58:33 +0000

RFC-Content-Type: text/plain;

RFC-Bytes: 2510
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 3:02:46 AM UTC-5, Pekka Takala wrote:
> On 09.03.2015 03:40, Payton Byrd wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 9:04:52 AM UTC-6, Harry Potter wrote:
> >> Hi!  I am asking your opinion: is it a good idea to create a C compiler
for and on the Vic20, C64, CBM264 series and/or the C128?  I have plans for a
cross-platform C compiler, also.
> > 
> > Why, why, why, why?  The only new C compiler that needs to be written is a
proper 65816 C compiler.
> > 
> 
> I think Western Design Center already has a 65816 C compiler. Why cc65
> is not enough?

cc65 doesn't generate 65816 code, only 6502 code.  cc65 doesn't have libraries
capable of using the extra memory afforded by the 65816.  In short, cc65 simply
is not a viable option for 65816 coding.

As for WDC, their C compiler is uber expensive.

> 
> I myself program in Assembly after all. C makes bloated code in my opinion.
> 
> For example, do a amiga mouse driver for c64 in under 256 bytes that has
> debugger included AND moves a sprite on screen. You must decode the data
> directly from port. If you do that in C, it will be WAY TOO SLOW.

Not on a 65816.


--- MBSE BBS v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux-i386)