Re: [cc65] Java VM built with cc65

--- Oliver Schmidt <ol.sc@web.de> wrote:
> Regarding the function vs. macros issue: I seem to
> remember that your
> improvements had a lot to do with function calls
> (esp.. leaf
> functions) so would it make sense to check out what
> the changes can do
> with the NanoVM code AS IS ?

Unfortunately not much, because the functions aren't
static or fastcall (either or both would help).

> My general issue is that I never compiled cc65
> myself so far and don't
> think it's that easy to do so for Windows.

I've been compiling cc65 with Microsoft's compiler,
with no trouble at all. You can ignore the makefile;
it doesn't do anything except compile the *.c files
and link. Couldn't be simpler.

> And
> additionally I have no
> clue how to handlie those "magic" patch/diff things.

That makes two of us.

> So after all it seems more reasonable to me that you
> take the NanoVM
> source and do some tests - especially as you know
> exactly what type of
> patterns / changes in th generated code you're
> looking for.

I thought about that, but (1) I don't have CVS
installed, and (2) after browsing the source, I think
that an unmodified compile would not show much
improvement.

Dan



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.