|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,239 Likes: 263
Very Senior Member
|
Very Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,239 Likes: 263 |
I'm just impressed that we've found someone who'll defend the x86 instruction set.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,608 Likes: 315
Very Senior Member
|
Very Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,608 Likes: 315 |
PowerPC is almost always dest,src,src, except in the case of a store, where it's src,dest,dest. OTOH, SPARC is almost always src,src,dest except for compare/exchange. Fun, huh?
I think the argument about order of source and destination is pointless - most people argue for the form they learn with. What does bother me is order of subtractions. I think PowerPC gets this right:
subfic rT,rA,IMM16
You think "subtract from immediate and carry", so the operation is IMM16 - rA => rT. And then there's:
sub rT,rA,rB
Where you think "subtract", and the operation is rA - rB => rT. But PICmicro gets it wrong. Look at this:
sublw IMM8
Now you would think, from the mnemonic, that it's "subtract literal from w", but it actually does the opposite. The operation is IMM8 - w => w. The designer probably thought something like "subtract: literal - w", but it's still ambiguous and/or misleading.
But big-Endian is the one true way - it's far easier to read in a debugger, and you find bugs where a person does things like *(INT32*)ptr8 when they mean (INT32)*ptr8 much faster, as that doesn't come close to working on a big-Endian system.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 392 Likes: 4
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 392 Likes: 4 |
I'm just impressed that we've found someone who'll defend the x86 instruction set. There's a big difference between defending the operand order in the mnemonics and defending the instruction set!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 89
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 89 |
Have you verified that? The build is newer (I have 5341 on PowerPC and 5367 on Intel) and Dave Dribin said they definitely fixed some reported bugs. I did a recompile of u1 right after a clean install of Leopard and vr was the second thing I checked (after the mandatory pacman test). I only ran vr for about 10 seconds, but I was definitely looking at a car floating over water. (Update: I tossed my u1 source directory and am currently compiling a fresh copy. I will post results later.)
Last edited by M. Twitty; 11/04/07 04:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 255
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 255 |
I did a recompile of u1 right after a clean install of Leopard and vr was the second thing I checked (after the mandatory pacman test). I only ran vr for about 10 seconds, but I was definitely looking at a car floating over water. Yes car over water and if you start a game you get a car floating over plain green color. That's been the case for me on both Intel and PPC Macs, compiled under Leopard or Tiger with recent builds of sdlmame. So it doesn't seem as if anything has really changed. What exactly is the issue with the version of gcc that VR needs to compile and work properly?
=will=
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 89
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 89 |
RB, et al:
Made a fat binary with a clean source tree, untouched XCode 3.0 installation and vr is still a no-go.
It's disappointing that they stuck with gcc 4.0.1, but at least they upgraded to php version 5.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 423
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 423 |
Leopard definitely has a newer gcc 4.0.1 than Tiger that fixed some bugs. I know it fixed the -mstackrealign bug I ran into.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 423
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 423 |
I think it's irritating that Xcode 3 doesn't run on Tiger. FWIW, Xcode 3 is written in Objective-C 2.0, with garbage-collection, which isn't available in Tiger. Oh, and Xcode 3 can no longer target 10.2 (and it's a 64-bit app). Xcode 2.5 is also out, which you can install side-by-side with 3 on Leopard as well as Tiger. I'm not sure which gcc that comes with, if it's even any different than 2.4.1. I haven't installed it, yet. -Dave
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,239 Likes: 263
Very Senior Member
|
Very Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,239 Likes: 263 |
Yeah, I upgraded both my PPC and Intel dev machines to Leopard now so 2.5 isn't as interesting. (Oddly the install on my G5 locked up with fans a-blazing the first try, but it was fine the second. The Intel Mini was fine).
Still, ObjC 2.0 seems quixotic at best - if I were Apple I'd offer money and engineering time to Novell to get better OS X integration in Mono. The ability to write Linux GUI apps in C# with forms has done wonders for the platform even at this relatively early stage.
|
|
|
Forums9
Topics9,331
Posts122,197
Members5,077
|
Most Online1,283 Dec 21st, 2022
|
|
These forums are sponsored by Superior Solitaire, an ad-free card game collection for macOS and iOS. Download it today!
|
|
|
|