3 ms·

Of course there was, and is.

by fuzztester 2y ago

kragen 2y ago
nope, totally not a thing in cp/m, sorry
- fuzztester 2y ago
  Replying a bit late ... I never said a word about CP/M, sorry. Referring to my original comment that you replied to, I was talking about Turbo Pascal on DOS, which (DOS, not Turbo Pascal) did have EXE files, from early versions that I had used. But the TP version I mentioned could only create .COM files. In fact, I remember the DEBUG utility was DEBUG.EXE, again from early DOS versions, although it was possibly DEBUG.COM earlier.
  - kragen 2y ago
    > Referring to my original comment that you replied to, I was talking about Turbo Pascal on DOS, you posted that comment in reply to stevekemp talking about the c compilers he was trying on his cp/m emulator; maybe you clicked the wrong reply link plausibly early versions of tp could only create .com files because they originally came from cp/m before being ported to ms-dog > it was possibly DEBUG.COM earlier yes, though the cp/m version was ddt.com, with a rather rebarbative ui reminiscent not of ddt but of teco
    - fuzztester 2y ago
      >you posted that comment in reply to stevekemp talking about the c compilers he was trying on his cp/m emulator; maybe you clicked the wrong reply link No, I clicked the right reply link that I meant to. But I see the issue now. Although his context was small sized compilers on CP/M, my (implied) context was not. Mine was just small sized compilers, period. My comment about TP 3 was in that context, and was not referring to CP/M. IOW, I was just saying, TP 3 was another small compiler (and I omitted saying that it was on DOS). I did not even know that TP had existed on CP/M, although I had used that OS briefly, before DOS, and had actually used a Pascal compiler on it, in a programming course I was attending. I remember the machine had those big 8-inch floppy disks. (1) But that was not the TP compiler, it was some other one, I don't remember which. So I can understand why you thought I was talking about CP/M, and hence said that it had no EXE files. (1) Or it might have been an MP/M machine, because I vaguely remember that we had to log in to it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP/M https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP/M
      - kragen 2y ago
        admittedly my initial reply wasn't that helpful in clarifying ;) yeah, tp3 is great. there were a lot of pretty decent compilers for ms-dog; being able to address hundreds of kilobytes of ram (even if awkwardly) and having separate 64k address spaces for code and data really reduces the difficulty of getting a decent compiler running. the compiler scene for cp/m is fairly dismal by comparison also, the 8080 and even the z80 were a lot less hospitable to c compiler output than the 8088. on many small processors, though not the z80, sdcc by default compiles everything that isn't specifically marke as __reentrant as non-reentrant, so your parameters and local variables are statically allocated; this isn't compliant with the c standard but is surely a better default tradeoff for the 8080 (which sdcc doesn't support) and probably for the z80 as well. see https://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccman.pdf#page=49 https://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccman.pdf#page=49 for details
        fuzztester 2y ago
        >yeah, tp3 is great Sure was, in many ways. That's why it had so many hardcore fans, and why people still talk about it. Speaking to your second paragraph, IIRC, TP 3 even had overlays, although I never used that feature, maybe because of being in the early stages of my career.
        fuzztester 2y ago
        >admittedly my initial reply wasn't that helpful in clarifying ;) NP :)

Of course there was, and is.

kragen 2y ago

nope, totally not a thing in cp/m, sorry

fuzztester 2y ago
Replying a bit late ... I never said a word about CP/M, sorry. Referring to my original comment that you replied to, I was talking about Turbo Pascal on DOS, which (DOS, not Turbo Pascal) did have EXE files, from early versions that I had used. But the TP version I mentioned could only create .COM files. In fact, I remember the DEBUG utility was DEBUG.EXE, again from early DOS versions, although it was possibly DEBUG.COM earlier.
- kragen 2y ago
  > Referring to my original comment that you replied to, I was talking about Turbo Pascal on DOS, you posted that comment in reply to stevekemp talking about the c compilers he was trying on his cp/m emulator; maybe you clicked the wrong reply link plausibly early versions of tp could only create .com files because they originally came from cp/m before being ported to ms-dog > it was possibly DEBUG.COM earlier yes, though the cp/m version was ddt.com, with a rather rebarbative ui reminiscent not of ddt but of teco
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    >you posted that comment in reply to stevekemp talking about the c compilers he was trying on his cp/m emulator; maybe you clicked the wrong reply link No, I clicked the right reply link that I meant to. But I see the issue now. Although his context was small sized compilers on CP/M, my (implied) context was not. Mine was just small sized compilers, period. My comment about TP 3 was in that context, and was not referring to CP/M. IOW, I was just saying, TP 3 was another small compiler (and I omitted saying that it was on DOS). I did not even know that TP had existed on CP/M, although I had used that OS briefly, before DOS, and had actually used a Pascal compiler on it, in a programming course I was attending. I remember the machine had those big 8-inch floppy disks. (1) But that was not the TP compiler, it was some other one, I don't remember which. So I can understand why you thought I was talking about CP/M, and hence said that it had no EXE files. (1) Or it might have been an MP/M machine, because I vaguely remember that we had to log in to it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP/M https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP/M
    - kragen 2y ago
      admittedly my initial reply wasn't that helpful in clarifying ;) yeah, tp3 is great. there were a lot of pretty decent compilers for ms-dog; being able to address hundreds of kilobytes of ram (even if awkwardly) and having separate 64k address spaces for code and data really reduces the difficulty of getting a decent compiler running. the compiler scene for cp/m is fairly dismal by comparison also, the 8080 and even the z80 were a lot less hospitable to c compiler output than the 8088. on many small processors, though not the z80, sdcc by default compiles everything that isn't specifically marke as __reentrant as non-reentrant, so your parameters and local variables are statically allocated; this isn't compliant with the c standard but is surely a better default tradeoff for the 8080 (which sdcc doesn't support) and probably for the z80 as well. see https://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccman.pdf#page=49 https://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccman.pdf#page=49 for details
      - fuzztester 2y ago
        >yeah, tp3 is great Sure was, in many ways. That's why it had so many hardcore fans, and why people still talk about it. Speaking to your second paragraph, IIRC, TP 3 even had overlays, although I never used that feature, maybe because of being in the early stages of my career.
      - fuzztester 2y ago
        >admittedly my initial reply wasn't that helpful in clarifying ;) NP :)