Mail Archives: opendos/1997/09/23/12:43:36
nuqneH,
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:29:31 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Roger Ivie <IVIE AT cc DOT usu DOT edu>
> Subject: Re: ClosedDos???
> To: OPENDOS AT delorie DOT com
[dd]
> > VAX programs could be manually optimized: remember that Macro-11 _is_ a
> >valid programming language - and it is hard to imagine someone coding big
> >projects in Alpha assembler. (back to C vs ASM discussion on this list)
>
> That would be Macro-32 if it's for the VAX.
Ooops,it was a typo..
> It has been some time since I have looked at the code generated for the more
> recent device drivers I've been doing in C. The Alpha/VMS guys have done a lot
> of work to make C an excellent language to use for writing VMS device drivers.
> The only drivers I still do in Macro-32 are ones that either execute on the
> VAX, are ported from the VAX (i.e., have executed on the VAX), or deal with
> portions of the kernel that are not yet C-friendly (such as the terminal
> class/port driver interface).
Hmm.. but look at VMS versions: more C - higher hadrware requirements.
V4 used 2Mb RAM,V6 uses 16!
> C doesn't fit everywhere. I doubt I could find a C compiler which works
> well enough write a CP/M-80 BIOS, yet I have no qualms about using C for
> embedded 68HC11 code (the 68HC11 is much more C-friendly than the 8080).
> Were I writing MS-DOS device drivers, I would certainly look at doing them
> in C.
I'd better think on low-level language like C-- or PL/M-86
BTW is there such thing as PL/M-386?
---
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Must be a visit from the dead.. _| o |_ | | _|| | / _||_| |_ |_ |_
CU in Hell .......... Arkan#iD |_ o _||_| _||_| / _| | o |_||_||_|
- Raw text -