Suggestions

[David J. Ruck]

On Tue 25 Apr, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, at 23:24:29, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote on
> the subject "Suggestions":
> 
> >In message <aVJfNPAlLXA5EwOi at mk-net.demon.co.uk>
> >          Tony van der Hoff <OSLib at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Secondly, I'm also a bit uncomfortable about the use of the
> >> (undocumented) macro __swi, which is only applicable to a single
> >> compiler, itself no longer maintained, and probably no longer the
> >> mainstream compiler for the platform. How much real benefit does it
> >> bestow on the library code?
> >
> >Well Norcroft is very much maintained, you just don't get new versions
> >unless you pay ARM a lot of money ;-) I'd say it's still used by the
> >majority of Acorn developers as it is still an excellent C89 compiler.
> >
> 
> 1. Is it maintained as a RISC OS compiler? I believe not.

As long as RISC OS are using it to build the OS it is very much relevant.
Infact several different versions have to be used to do an OS build, due
to little querks.
 
> 2. It is an excellent compiler, albeit a bit long in the tooth, but that
> doesn't matter. I believe that Norcroft *is* falling into disuse on this
> platform (because the average person can't buy it?) as people migrate
> onto gcc and c++. I could be wrong, and probably am ;-)

The average person may be going for gcc these days because its free. However
developers are using Norcroft and will continue to do so indefinately.
 
> 3. My question wasn't phrased very well, I meant to ask how much benefit
> is derived from the use of the __SWI macro in the context of the overall
> library. That got lost in the compiler issue.

Very much depends on the particular program, but its unlikely gain more 1%
exececution and 3% code density.
 
> However, none of that doesn't really answers the question of keeping
> __SWI, which was where we started. I've no strong feelings, but I do
> believe it to be redundant, and as such represents a potential problem
> to users which can be pre-empted.

I dont see any problem keeping it while no-one has demonstrated any real
problem.

Cheers
---Dave

-- 
______________________________________________________________________

  David J. Ruck     Phone: 07974 108301     Email: druck at freeuk.com
______________________________________________________________________