From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2003-03-07 11:34:01
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:26:46AM +0100, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
> Well, the standard even requires that compilation with and w/o optimizations
> returns the same values. As even gcc on an iA32 fails to do that, I think it
> would not be so bad if CC65 would violate it "a little", too. ;-)
This means that cc65 would violate this special requirement in standard when
both, cc65 and the target platform use the IEEE 32 bit format, but cc65 is
compiled with gcc:-)
But I don't consider this an important argument, either. The main arguments
against using ROM routines are that there are machines without fp routines, so
the library needs a full implementation anyway, and that the compiler must
know about the different formats.
> Although I would find it interesting, I surely would not be the person to do
> that - but the people wanting this feature might try to implement some basic
> functions (add, sub, mul and div) and I'm almost sure that Uz would not add
> support in the compiler as soon as these routines prove to be usefull.
>
> Wanting him to add support when the functions are not there is not a good
> idea, as it would take his time, and as we all know, it is not that likely that
> someone would fill in the gap of the routines, except Uz himself.
Writing the 6502 code is probably less effort than adding floating point
support to the compiler. While the initial work should be about the same,
parts of the compiler are rather messy, so these changes have a high
probability of leading to lots of problems.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-03-07 11:34:23 CET