After I posted that comment on Small C, I realised there's undoubtedly a
CP/M version of Small-C. An advantage of doing it in CP/M instead of
native M100 mode is you have about 55KB in CP/M to host the compiler,
source & output files, whereas in M100 mode, less than 32KB. Unless of
course you went the Optrom route, but that would need a rewrite of Small-C.
In fact you can have more than 55KB, you can clobber the CCP (which
programs like DDT.COM and MBASIC do to give them max RAM), this would
give you 57KB. But wait... there's even more! You could even clobber the
BDOS and access BIOS directly. This way you can still do screen/keyboard
IO, plus disk sector-level editing. This would free up 61KB! What you
could do with all that? ;-)
These RAM sizes should stay the same with CP/M on a real M100 - I've
kept some space for extra hardware routines.
Philip
On 9/07/2017 5:20 PM, Willard Goosey wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 16:37:10 +1200
Philip Avery <pav...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Not to detract from Willard's Small-C efforts, but whose is going to
be first to get BDS-C (or any C) running on M100 CP/M?
I dunno man. I've done all my CP/M C stuff under C/80. I was *planning*
on converting to BDS-C... But that never actually seemed to
happen. :-( C/80 is a dreadful hack, but it works, and I do like that
it talks to m80... What should have been a brief exercise with
TDL-link turned into a nightmare that's left me suspicious of any
linker except Microsoft's. Which is a very VERY weird feeling...
Willard
