C--: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

C-- (view source)

Revision as of 16:16, 23 October 2015

477 bytes removed , 8 years ago

no edit summary

[unchecked revision]

VisualWikitext

Anonymous user

osdev>George24

Revision as of 15:39, 22 October 2015 (view source) osdev>George24 No edit summary ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 16:16, 23 October 2015 (view source) osdev>George24 No edit summary
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 19: ==Cons== * not portable; it is very closely tied to the x86 assembly; * is developed by few developers, the community is small; has less users than gcc so ~~more~~ may have more bugs; * one compiler implementation availlable and only for one platform (DOS); * larger projects generally should be written in high-level languages, not low-level like Sphinx Full C--; * can be mixed with other languages in the project, where C-- is used for x86-related low level parts of the system, but doesn't give as much control as assembly and increases the number of compilers necessary; * in order to be low-level, many limitations are in place: for example, array subscripts (like in x= myArr['''subscript''']) are limited to simple expressions (like myArr[10], myArr[ESI]; but myArr[myArr[1]] is not allowed); ~~I don't know if~~* it can not output 64bit code.▼ * C code with inline assembly is no less powerful and easy to write than C--. Early versions of [[User:Adek336\|panaLiX]] used Sphinx Full C--. The Panalix website is [http://panalix.sourceforge.net/ here] but there is no Sphinx C-- code currently available. ~~I am not sure on the output formats of the compiler but I fear it provides only flat-binary and dos exes.~~ ▲I don't know if it can output 64bit code. ~~Early versions of [[User:Adek336\|panaLiX]] used Sphinx Full C--.~~ ==Examples==