Looking for programming languages that compile to C
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: USB drives, caching and sync
Next: Which CPU to choose?
From: -jg on 11 Jan 2010 17:12 On Jan 12, 11:07 am, Grant Edwards > I think we've got a pretty good clue that it won't meet his needs: 1KB RAM and 32KB of ROM. :) After an initial ?!?, I took that to mean a rough application footprint, NOT the actual compiler resource needed. The OP does need to provide more info.. -jg
From: Jon Kirwan on 11 Jan 2010 17:13 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:07:03 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-01-11, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:21:02 +0100, Philipp Klaus Krause >> wrote: >> >>>I asked this question here about one and a half years ago. I'm posting >>>again since I'm curious about the current situation. >>> >>>I want to look at alternatives to C for Z80 programming using languages >>>that compile to C. There are the following requirements: >>> >>>- Compiles to C >>>- Free compiler >>>- Low memory usage (I have only 1KB of RAM, 32KB of ROM) >>> >>>Has anyone come across such a language? >>> >>>The last requirement seems to be a rather hard one. Many languages that >>>compile to C include relatively large overhead or do dynamic allocation >>>of memory, etc. So far bitc (http://bitc-lang.org/) seems to be the >>>closest match, but it's abandoned. >> >> I'm not sure what you are _really_ trying to find. C++ used >> to be translated to c with something called cfront. Up until >> version 4, when growing exception handling requirements >> finally forced a transition to true c++ compilation to object >> code. cfront is largely dead, now. But that doesn't mean it >> wouldn't still be an option. It did a great job for what it >> did. Of course, I have no way to know if it meets your >> needs. > >I think we've got a pretty good clue that it won't meet his >needs: 1KB RAM and 32KB of ROM. :) What won't? Jon
From: Grant Edwards on 11 Jan 2010 17:22 On 2010-01-11, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:07:03 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards ><invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>On 2010-01-11, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:21:02 +0100, Philipp Klaus Krause >>> wrote: >>> >>>>I asked this question here about one and a half years ago. I'm posting >>>>again since I'm curious about the current situation. >>>> >>>>I want to look at alternatives to C for Z80 programming using languages >>>>that compile to C. There are the following requirements: >>>> >>>>- Compiles to C >>>>- Free compiler >>>>- Low memory usage (I have only 1KB of RAM, 32KB of ROM) >>>> >>>>Has anyone come across such a language? >>>> >>>>The last requirement seems to be a rather hard one. Many languages that >>>>compile to C include relatively large overhead or do dynamic allocation >>>>of memory, etc. So far bitc (http://bitc-lang.org/) seems to be the >>>>closest match, but it's abandoned. >>> >>> I'm not sure what you are _really_ trying to find. C++ used >>> to be translated to c with something called cfront. Up until >>> version 4, when growing exception handling requirements >>> finally forced a transition to true c++ compilation to object >>> code. cfront is largely dead, now. But that doesn't mean it >>> wouldn't still be an option. It did a great job for what it >>> did. Of course, I have no way to know if it meets your >>> needs. >> >>I think we've got a pretty good clue that it won't meet his >>needs: 1KB RAM and 32KB of ROM. :) > > What won't? Writing C++ programs using cfront. I assume that was what "it" referred to. If not, then I've no idea either... -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Hey, wait at a minute!! I want a visi.com divorce!! ... you're not Clint Eastwood!!
From: Jon Kirwan on 11 Jan 2010 17:42 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:22:20 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-01-11, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:07:03 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards >><invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>On 2010-01-11, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:21:02 +0100, Philipp Klaus Krause >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>I asked this question here about one and a half years ago. I'm posting >>>>>again since I'm curious about the current situation. >>>>> >>>>>I want to look at alternatives to C for Z80 programming using languages >>>>>that compile to C. There are the following requirements: >>>>> >>>>>- Compiles to C >>>>>- Free compiler >>>>>- Low memory usage (I have only 1KB of RAM, 32KB of ROM) >>>>> >>>>>Has anyone come across such a language? >>>>> >>>>>The last requirement seems to be a rather hard one. Many languages that >>>>>compile to C include relatively large overhead or do dynamic allocation >>>>>of memory, etc. So far bitc (http://bitc-lang.org/) seems to be the >>>>>closest match, but it's abandoned. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what you are _really_ trying to find. C++ used >>>> to be translated to c with something called cfront. Up until >>>> version 4, when growing exception handling requirements >>>> finally forced a transition to true c++ compilation to object >>>> code. cfront is largely dead, now. But that doesn't mean it >>>> wouldn't still be an option. It did a great job for what it >>>> did. Of course, I have no way to know if it meets your >>>> needs. >>> >>>I think we've got a pretty good clue that it won't meet his >>>needs: 1KB RAM and 32KB of ROM. :) >> >> What won't? > >Writing C++ programs using cfront. I assume that was what >"it" referred to. If not, then I've no idea either... Well, Jim also opens the possibility of talking about a hosted system. If you are suggesting that I was suggesting a cfront implementation on a target embedded system, then you and I agree there. I had been (perhaps wrongly) imagining that the translator would be implemented on some other "host" system. In such a case, cfront does a pretty good job and if a targeting c compiler would produce a small enough footprint on the embedded system, then so may also c++ filtered via cfront in many cases. I grant as fact that I know almost nothing about what the OP desires. Jon
From: Grant Edwards on 11 Jan 2010 18:00
On 2010-01-11, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:22:20 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards ><invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>On 2010-01-11, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:07:03 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards >>><invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>On 2010-01-11, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:21:02 +0100, Philipp Klaus Krause >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I asked this question here about one and a half years ago. I'm posting >>>>>>again since I'm curious about the current situation. >>>>>> >>>>>>I want to look at alternatives to C for Z80 programming using languages >>>>>>that compile to C. There are the following requirements: >>>>>> >>>>>>- Compiles to C >>>>>>- Free compiler >>>>>>- Low memory usage (I have only 1KB of RAM, 32KB of ROM) >>>>>> >>>>>>Has anyone come across such a language? >>>>>> >>>>>>The last requirement seems to be a rather hard one. Many languages that >>>>>>compile to C include relatively large overhead or do dynamic allocation >>>>>>of memory, etc. So far bitc (http://bitc-lang.org/) seems to be the >>>>>>closest match, but it's abandoned. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what you are _really_ trying to find. C++ used >>>>> to be translated to c with something called cfront. Up until >>>>> version 4, when growing exception handling requirements >>>>> finally forced a transition to true c++ compilation to object >>>>> code. cfront is largely dead, now. But that doesn't mean it >>>>> wouldn't still be an option. It did a great job for what it >>>>> did. Of course, I have no way to know if it meets your >>>>> needs. >>>> >>>>I think we've got a pretty good clue that it won't meet his >>>>needs: 1KB RAM and 32KB of ROM. :) >>> >>> What won't? >> >>Writing C++ programs using cfront. I assume that was what >>"it" referred to. If not, then I've no idea either... > > Well, Jim also opens the possibility of talking about a > hosted system. If you are suggesting that I was suggesting a > cfront implementation on a target embedded system, then you > and I agree there. No, I meant that writing C++ programs using cfront (on a hosted system) sounds like a very unsuitable development methodology for a target with 1KB of RAM and 32KB of ROM. Perhaps I'm misremembering how much target overhead was involved when using cfront. > I had been (perhaps wrongly) imagining that the translator > would be implemented on some other "host" system. In such a > case, cfront does a pretty good job and if a targeting c > compiler would produce a small enough footprint on the > embedded system, then so may also c++ filtered via cfront in > many cases. Perhaps. My recollection was that there was quite a bit of support/overhead involved with cfront, but I may be conflating cfront with something else (it was a long time ago). > I grant as fact that I know almost nothing about what the OP > desires. I don't either... -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Four thousand at different MAGNATES, MOGULS visi.com & NABOBS are romping in my gothic solarium!! |