C++ basic compiler

FaveRave09 · Post by **FaveRave09** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 8:42 pm

I am working on a simple C++ program to turn a text file written as basic and turn it into a TI 83+ (8XP) file. Can anyone help me out on finding the file format or the codes for basic commands? I think I have a way of finding it out, but I want to make sure I doing it right. (it is friggin hard

)

threefingeredguy · Post by **threefingeredguy** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 10:05 pm

Turn it into a basic program or an ASM program. Both are pretty much the same filewise. There was a link I've forgotten about, but I got it from someone on this board or on detachedsolutions.com. The most important thing is the checksum which is ( I ~think~) the low order byte of the sum of the bytes in the program. A list of the symbols and commands and the hex equivalent can be found in ti83plus.inc. Good Luck!

Liazon · Post by **Liazon** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 10:19 pm

I recommend a C++ compiler that creates ASM programs. That'd be so awesome. Then 83+ series can compete with Ti-89's TIGCC.

hey btw, do you need a 32-bit processor to be compatible with C/C++?
z80 is 16-bit I think.

threefingeredguy · Post by **threefingeredguy** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 10:21 pm

I think z80 is 8 bit, though I might be wrong. And on TI Freak's Assembly Resource, there IS a z80 C compiler. The problem is C code is bloated compared to real z80.

DigiTan · Post by **DigiTan** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 10:34 pm

#1 - Z80 is 8 bit

#2 - Both C++, TIGCC --and all other languages for that matter-- are slow and bloated compared to assembly and machine code.

#3 - The processor doesn't have to be any specific architecture or bus size. In fact, my flash expander prototype used C on an 8-bit AVR-series Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âµcontroller.

@ FaveRave09: I'm not sure of how it works either, but I saw a BASIC token summary on ticalc not too long ago. With any luck, some has done an 83+ version by now as well.

DarkerLine · Post by **DarkerLine** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 10:40 pm

C may be slower than assembly but it's not "slow and bloated" by any means (it may actually be faster and smaller for mediocre assembly coders). In general. C seems to be bad with z80 so that's why C compilers for 83 series calculators aren't that great.

DigiTan · Post by **DigiTan** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 11:01 pm

I'm guess I'm guilty of exaggarating a bit there with the "bloated" talk. In relative terms, it's still tough to find to a C routine to runs as fast as an ASM version.

DarkerLine · Post by **DarkerLine** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 11:10 pm

TI-Chess has persuaded me in the worth of TIGCC.

FaveRave09 · Post by **FaveRave09** » Wed 30 Nov, 2005 12:48 am

whoa. way more info than I asked for (thanks). I must admit, I never thought of using the ti.inc file (hitting myself in the head with anuncooked noodle). but some people are interpreting the situation totally differently. I can't tell what you're thinking of, but it's not what I'm thinkin. thanks a lot anyway.

MissingIntellect · Post by **MissingIntellect** » Wed 30 Nov, 2005 1:39 am

C on a 16-bit platform, such as the 68k processor in the TI-89 family? Absolutely. C on a Z80 platform, such as the TI-83? You're probaqbly better off with assembly.

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Wed 30 Nov, 2005 3:10 am

The C compilers which are targetted at the 68k processors have been in dev for a while and are quite decent. They code produced is STILL bloatware when compared to hand-coded ASM.

There are a few C compilers targetted at z80 but they are not very decent as far as calc dev is concerned.

blueskies · Post by **blueskies** » Wed 30 Nov, 2005 3:46 am

FaveRave09 wrote:I am working on a simple C++ program to turn a text file written as basic and turn it into a TI 83+ (8XP) file.

he's not doing a C->Z80 program, he's doing a BASIC->Z80 program written in C++. It still makes no sense, but at least we should argue about the right thing.

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Wed 30 Nov, 2005 3:59 am

Yes, i think we are all aware of what he is trying to do. But the point still remains about the C->z80 thing.

FaveRave09: You do know that the old graphlink basically allows you to do that right?

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Wed 30 Nov, 2005 5:27 am

I hate to say it but y'know I can do pretty much the same thing with TI Graphlink 83+, except for replacing the Theta characters and the arrow characters.

Liazon · Post by **Liazon** » Wed 30 Nov, 2005 5:37 am

tr1p1ea wrote:The C compilers which are targetted at the 68k processors have been in dev for a while and are quite decent. They code produced is STILL bloatware when compared to hand-coded ASM.

There are a few C compilers targetted at z80 but they are not very decent as far as calc dev is concerned.

But isn't 68k ASM rather different from z80 ASM because you are handling so many more bytes in one register?

and yay for 68k's built in multiplication!

MaxCoderz

C++ basic compiler

C++ basic compiler

Thanks

Re: C++ basic compiler