3 ms·

MP/M ran fine on the Z-80. Only the mnemonics were different between Intel and Zilog. The byte-level machine code of the 8080/8085 would run just fine on the

MP/M ran fine on the Z-80. Only the mnemonics were different between Intel and Zilog. The byte-level machine code of the 8080/8085 would run just fine on the Z-80.

yuubi 7y ago
I was once blessed with a z80 c compiler, hosted on msdos but targeting cp/m (maybe it was ported for use with embedded targets). Its output was 8080 assembler with the odd db here and there when it wanted to emit a z80 instruction. It shipped with a perfectly good z80 assembler, mind; the compiler just emitted 8080 mnemonics because reasons.
- anonymousiam 7y ago
  I always thought that the Zilog mnemonics were better than Intel's. I learned Intel first, but immediately recognized that Zilog's were better once I became aware of them. The only C compiler I had on CP/M was BDS C. It was fairly limited and had no floating point support whatsoever. Maybe that's the one you're thinking of?
  - yuubi 7y ago
    This one was called Aztec and Manx C, depending on what part you looked at. It lacked bit field struct members and I think a couple of other features but don't remember now. I learned Zilog first and agree with you. I had to keep an 8080 manual handy for a while to make any sense out of that compiler output. Good(?) times.
    - anonymousiam 7y ago
      I used Aztec C for the 68k on some embedded projects for work in the late 80's. The 68k version was a full-featured C implementation complete with IEEE-754 floating-point math and bit fields. I liked the fact that Aztec included the source code for parts of their libraries so one could write their own drivers for stdio devices. I still have that code somewhere...
doctor_eval 7y ago
yes - but as a Z80 programmer it was hard to use the 8080-oriented tooling on the MP/M machines. I mean there was a direct correspondence from 8080 to Z80 but man... 8080 was ugly.

3 ms·

MP/M ran fine on the Z-80. Only the mnemonics were different between Intel and Zilog. The byte-level machine code of the 8080/8085 would run just fine on the

by anonymousiam 7y ago

MP/M ran fine on the Z-80. Only the mnemonics were different between Intel and Zilog. The byte-level machine code of the 8080/8085 would run just fine on the Z-80.

yuubi 7y ago
I was once blessed with a z80 c compiler, hosted on msdos but targeting cp/m (maybe it was ported for use with embedded targets). Its output was 8080 assembler with the odd db here and there when it wanted to emit a z80 instruction. It shipped with a perfectly good z80 assembler, mind; the compiler just emitted 8080 mnemonics because reasons.
- anonymousiam 7y ago
  I always thought that the Zilog mnemonics were better than Intel's. I learned Intel first, but immediately recognized that Zilog's were better once I became aware of them. The only C compiler I had on CP/M was BDS C. It was fairly limited and had no floating point support whatsoever. Maybe that's the one you're thinking of?
  - yuubi 7y ago
    This one was called Aztec and Manx C, depending on what part you looked at. It lacked bit field struct members and I think a couple of other features but don't remember now. I learned Zilog first and agree with you. I had to keep an 8080 manual handy for a while to make any sense out of that compiler output. Good(?) times.
    - anonymousiam 7y ago
      I used Aztec C for the 68k on some embedded projects for work in the late 80's. The 68k version was a full-featured C implementation complete with IEEE-754 floating-point math and bit fields. I liked the fact that Aztec included the source code for parts of their libraries so one could write their own drivers for stdio devices. I still have that code somewhere...
doctor_eval 7y ago
yes - but as a Z80 programmer it was hard to use the 8080-oriented tooling on the MP/M machines. I mean there was a direct correspondence from 8080 to Z80 but man... 8080 was ugly.