option in gcc that lets us produce object code for 16-bit processor

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by chandanlinster, Jul 23, 2006.

  1. I was just curious to know whether there is an option within the gcc
    compiler that lets us produce object code for 16-bit processor, while
    we are working on 32-bit machines.
     
    chandanlinster, Jul 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    chandanlinster <> wrote:
    >I was just curious to know whether there is an option within the gcc
    >compiler that lets us produce object code for 16-bit processor, while
    >we are working on 32-bit machines.


    Yes, No, Maybe.

    If you need assistance with gcc itself, you should ask in one of the
    gnu newsgroups.

    Generally speaking, gcc does support cross-compiling even
    between completely different systems, but it isn't been universally
    ported yet, so without further information from you we wouldn't
    be able to tell you whether it is supported on -your- "32 bit machine"
    or whether it supports -your- "16 bit processor".
    --
    Programming is what happens while you're busy making other plans.
     
    Walter Roberson, Jul 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chandanlinster

    Morris Dovey Guest

    Re: [OT] option in gcc that lets us produce object code for 16-bit processor

    chandanlinster (in
    ) said:

    | I was just curious to know whether there is an option within the gcc
    | compiler that lets us produce object code for 16-bit processor,
    | while we are working on 32-bit machines.

    Yes - take a look at the gcc documentation for target processor
    options.

    --
    Morris Dovey
    DeSoto Solar
    DeSoto, Iowa USA
    http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
     
    Morris Dovey, Jul 23, 2006
    #3
  4. chandanlinster

    Tom St Denis Guest

    chandanlinster wrote:
    > I was just curious to know whether there is an option within the gcc
    > compiler that lets us produce object code for 16-bit processor, while
    > we are working on 32-bit machines.


    Assuming you mean 8086 like 16-bit then the answer is no. As far as I
    know the public GCC archives do not target it.

    Cygnus does offer GCC based compilers [or they used to at least] for
    various 8 and 16-bit platforms which most likely included the 8086 [186
    and 286, etc] but they're not free.

    To answer the question in general ... others have answered it. To sum
    up, GCC is often used as a "cross-compiler" which means you build for a
    TARGET platform which is not your HOST platform. GCC is a bit weirder
    that it also has a BUILD platform. That is, you can build a cross
    compiler on platform A, to run on platform B and build code for
    platform C. [my apologies if I got the names mixed up].

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Jul 23, 2006
    #4
  5. Re: option in gcc that lets us produce object code for 16-bitprocessor

    "Tom St Denis" <> writes:
    > chandanlinster wrote:
    >> I was just curious to know whether there is an option within the gcc
    >> compiler that lets us produce object code for 16-bit processor, while
    >> we are working on 32-bit machines.

    >
    > Assuming you mean 8086 like 16-bit then the answer is no. As far as I
    > know the public GCC archives do not target it.
    >
    > Cygnus does offer GCC based compilers [or they used to at least] for
    > various 8 and 16-bit platforms which most likely included the 8086 [186
    > and 286, etc] but they're not free.

    [...]

    That raises some interesting licensing questions which are, of course,
    completely off-topic here.

    Followups redirected. If you want to discuss it further, try
    gnu.misc.discuss or misc.int-property.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Jul 23, 2006
    #5
  6. chandanlinster

    Tom St Denis Guest

    Keith Thompson wrote:
    > That raises some interesting licensing questions which are, of course,
    > completely off-topic here.
    >
    > Followups redirected. If you want to discuss it further, try
    > gnu.misc.discuss or misc.int-property.


    For someone who complains about the nasty and rude behaviours of
    others, you certainly are no shining example of maturity.

    I'm sorry you don't like the regulars here [which I'm not really one
    of] but that's no reason to reply to everything with childish
    hostility.

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Jul 23, 2006
    #6
  7. Re: option in gcc that lets us produce object code for 16-bitprocessor

    "Tom St Denis" <> writes:
    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> That raises some interesting licensing questions which are, of course,
    >> completely off-topic here.
    >>
    >> Followups redirected. If you want to discuss it further, try
    >> gnu.misc.discuss or misc.int-property.

    >
    > For someone who complains about the nasty and rude behaviours of
    > others, you certainly are no shining example of maturity.
    >
    > I'm sorry you don't like the regulars here [which I'm not really one
    > of] but that's no reason to reply to everything with childish
    > hostility.


    No rudeness or hostility was intended.

    I meant exactly what I said: what you wrote upthread:

    | Cygnus does offer GCC based compilers [or they used to at least] for
    | various 8 and 16-bit platforms which most likely included the 8086 [186
    | and 286, etc] but they're not free.

    does raise some interesting licensing questions. gcc itself is
    covered by the GPL. I'm not sure how a gcc based compiler can be
    non-free. I'm *not* saying it can't be, I'm saying I'm not sure how.
    I'm also aware of the important distinction between "free as in beer"
    and "free as in speech", but I'm no expert in this field. In fact,
    I'm curious myself about the details.

    Since this has nothing to do with C, I didn't want to start a long
    discussion of it here in comp.lang.c. I also didn't want to redirect
    the thread either to gnu.misc.discuss or to misc.int-property. By
    redirecting followups to /dev/null *and* explicitly mentioning in the
    body of my article that followups had been redirected, I intended to
    (a) discourage a long off-topic discussion here in comp.lang.c and (b)
    encourage anyone interested to discuss the issue in a more appropriate
    newsgroup.

    I understand that redirecting to /dev/null might seem rude, an
    indication that the discussion is of no value; that wasn't my intent
    in this case. And of course you managed to override the redirection
    yourself.

    As for your "I'm sorry you don't like the regulars here", I have no
    idea what that's supposed to mean. Perhaps you'e confused me with
    someone else.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Jul 23, 2006
    #7
  8. chandanlinster

    Tom St Denis Guest

    Keith Thompson wrote:
    > No rudeness or hostility was intended.
    >
    > I meant exactly what I said: what you wrote upthread:
    >
    > | Cygnus does offer GCC based compilers [or they used to at least] for
    > | various 8 and 16-bit platforms which most likely included the 8086 [186
    > | and 286, etc] but they're not free.
    >
    > does raise some interesting licensing questions. gcc itself is
    > covered by the GPL. I'm not sure how a gcc based compiler can be
    > non-free. I'm *not* saying it can't be, I'm saying I'm not sure how.
    > I'm also aware of the important distinction between "free as in beer"
    > and "free as in speech", but I'm no expert in this field. In fact,
    > I'm curious myself about the details.


    Well the GPL says you have to provide the source to your modifications.
    It never said for free. It also never said you have to provide it to
    the public either. Only to those who receive the corresponding binary.


    So for instance, I could sell a copy of GCC for 300$ per seat, then to
    the licensee holders send them a copy of the GPL'ed source [including
    my modifications if any]. They could then turn around and productize
    that but chances are they're not going to. Specifically if your
    modifications are of value [e.g. hard to improve on without talent].

    So it's not likely that people will copy the code and then try to
    compete because they would have to be able to actually improve the
    compiler in much the way Cygnus does (they contributed code back to the
    public too btw).

    So your "value" is that you can provide, maintain, upgrade and support
    development tools. You can form a business around this provided you
    can find the talent to work the product.

    > Since this has nothing to do with C, I didn't want to start a long
    > discussion of it here in comp.lang.c. I also didn't want to redirect
    > the thread either to gnu.misc.discuss or to misc.int-property. By
    > redirecting followups to /dev/null *and* explicitly mentioning in the
    > body of my article that followups had been redirected, I intended to
    > (a) discourage a long off-topic discussion here in comp.lang.c and (b)
    > encourage anyone interested to discuss the issue in a more appropriate
    > newsgroup.


    The best way to discourage a long winded off-topic thread is to not
    participate in it.

    See you use what we call hyperbole. You take things to an extreme to
    try and make a point, all while you can BOTH reply to the OP and tell
    them it's off topic politely. Instead you chime in about some moral
    superiority all the other kids don't like me so I'm going to sulk about
    it and cry like the child I am, bullshit.

    > I understand that redirecting to /dev/null might seem rude, an
    > indication that the discussion is of no value; that wasn't my intent
    > in this case. And of course you managed to override the redirection
    > yourself.


    Yeah, your ruse didn't foil me.

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Jul 23, 2006
    #8
  9. Tom St Denis said:

    <snip>
    >
    > The best way to discourage a long winded off-topic thread is to not
    > participate in it.


    For off-topic discussions to dominate the group, it is necessary only for
    those who don't want them to do nothing.

    > See you use what we call hyperbole.


    Oh, the irony.

    <snip>

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Jul 23, 2006
    #9
  10. Re: option in gcc that lets us produce object code for 16-bitprocessor

    "Tom St Denis" <> writes:
    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> No rudeness or hostility was intended.
    >>
    >> I meant exactly what I said: what you wrote upthread:
    >>
    >> | Cygnus does offer GCC based compilers [or they used to at least] for
    >> | various 8 and 16-bit platforms which most likely included the 8086 [186
    >> | and 286, etc] but they're not free.
    >>
    >> does raise some interesting licensing questions. gcc itself is
    >> covered by the GPL. I'm not sure how a gcc based compiler can be
    >> non-free. I'm *not* saying it can't be, I'm saying I'm not sure how.
    >> I'm also aware of the important distinction between "free as in beer"
    >> and "free as in speech", but I'm no expert in this field. In fact,
    >> I'm curious myself about the details.

    >
    > Well the GPL says

    [snip]

    I said I was curious about the details. That wasn't a request for you
    to explain them *here*. If you want to start a thread in a more
    appropriate newsgroup, I'll be glad to read it. If not, that's fine.

    >> Since this has nothing to do with C, I didn't want to start a long
    >> discussion of it here in comp.lang.c. I also didn't want to redirect
    >> the thread either to gnu.misc.discuss or to misc.int-property. By
    >> redirecting followups to /dev/null *and* explicitly mentioning in the
    >> body of my article that followups had been redirected, I intended to
    >> (a) discourage a long off-topic discussion here in comp.lang.c and (b)
    >> encourage anyone interested to discuss the issue in a more appropriate
    >> newsgroup.

    >
    > The best way to discourage a long winded off-topic thread is to not
    > participate in it.


    And yet here you are.

    > See you use what we call hyperbole. You take things to an extreme ton
    > try and make a point, all while you can BOTH reply to the OP and tell
    > them it's off topic politely. Instead you chime in about some moral
    > superiority all the other kids don't like me so I'm going to sulk about
    > it and cry like the child I am, bullshit.


    I honestly don't know (or care) what you're talking about. (Yes, now
    I'm being rude.) If you're referring to something I've written in
    this thread, I can only suspect that you're making it up,
    intentionally or otherwise. If you're referring to other things I've
    written in this newsgroup, I suggest that dragging it into this thread
    is less than productive.

    >> I understand that redirecting to /dev/null might seem rude, an
    >> indication that the discussion is of no value; that wasn't my intent
    >> in this case. And of course you managed to override the redirection
    >> yourself.

    >
    > Yeah, your ruse didn't foil me.


    It wasn't a ruse. It was *intended* to be obvious. You were able to
    figure it out; I presume anyone else would as well. If it had been a
    ruse, I wouldn't have mentioned in the body of my message that I had
    redirected followups.

    To summarize what I was *trying* to say upthread:

    This raises some interesting questions about licensing. These
    questions are not topical in this newsgroup, so I won't elaborate
    here. If someone wants to discuss it, I suggest doing so in a
    more appropriate newsgroup.

    You seem to have some problem with that, or with me. That's just too
    bad.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Jul 23, 2006
    #10
  11. chandanlinster

    Thad Smith Guest

    chandanlinster wrote:
    > I was just curious to know whether there is an option within the gcc
    > compiler that lets us produce object code for 16-bit processor, while
    > we are working on 32-bit machines.
    >

    <OT> There is a GCC compiler which targets the TI MSP430 16-bit
    processor and runs on supported platforms, including many 32-bit hosts.
    </OT>

    --
    Thad
     
    Thad Smith, Jul 24, 2006
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    666
    Uncle Noah
    Mar 22, 2006
  2. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    465
    Luc The Perverse
    Oct 27, 2006
  3. brahatha
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    661
  4. Qi
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    953
  5. Super Goat
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    394
Loading...

Share This Page