I think I can find an eprom or eprom image for a Monitor that works on the
SBC 8024A... Unfortunatly I don't have source.
It is for something called 'supermonitor'. Would this be helpful?
George Rachor
=========================================================
George L. Rachor Jr. george_at_racsys.rt.rain.com
Hillsboro, Oregon
http://racsys.rt.rain.com
United States of America Amateur Radio : KD7DCX
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Please see embedded remarks below.
>
> Dick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ajp166 <ajp166_at_bellatlantic.net>
> To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Monitor for iSBC 8024
>
>
> > From: Richard Erlacher <richard_at_idcomm.com>
> > >> From: Richard Erlacher <richard_at_idcomm.com>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Use the editor that comes with the mailer, please.
> > >>
> > >
> > >What???
> >
> It's the term "mailer" that confused me.
> >
> > Unless your system is severely crippled your Email has an
> > editor that will allow your to strip the excess non relevent text.
> > Try it, make it easier to read on the other end.
> >
> > >> I havent a clue why you said that at all since the origin of the
> > smallc-c
> > >> compiler is 8080? I still have the original DDJ articles with
> > sources.
> > >>
> > >What I said (I thought) was that I don't want to fiddle with small-C to
> > the
> > >extent of writing a new code generator for the 'HC11, 'HC05's,
> > 805x-series,
> > >PIC, etc, since Hi-Tech already has a code generator for their compiler
> > for
> >
> >
> > No problem with that. But I thought the initial problem was testing a
> > bunch
> > of ISBC8020s? Where did all the other excess about other cpus come
> > into that?
> >
> > >each of those. It would be a BIG job to do that for the Hendrix
> compiler,
> > >reduced though it is, since what's needed is a general enough compiler
> > >that once I write a debug monitor based on some existing model I already
> have
> >
> what this refers to is the fact that I've used neither small-C or the
> Hi-Tech compiler, and before I wade into yet another quagmire, for this
> specific job, unless it leads me into a new tool that I can use later. Back
> when these older tools were developed, there was no standard for 'C' and the
> K&R "proposal" was seldom adhered to enough to allow one to rely on it.
> What interests me about the HI-Tech compiler is that the thing supports the
> 'HC11, HC05, PIC, and TMS320 family. That's sufficient capability to
> warrant the effort of learning it. The small-C would take a lot of work,
> particularly since it's not written in a dialect of 'C' that is familiar to
> me. I do, by the way, have the Mix-C compiler and its CP/M based
> antecedent. I just realize, unlike lots of other, for some of whom it's
> perhaps not yet the case, that I'm getting close to full capacity,
> memory-wise, and I really don't want to learn yet another odd-ball compiler.
> I'd rather do the job in assembler <sigh>.
>
> The Hi-tech compiler, if the documentation is to be believed, doesn't have a
> code generator for the 8080 and 8085, BTW. It's a pretty decent
> possibility, however, "less-than-perfect" this compiler may be, if it were
> to be fit to generate a "solution" to my problem, I'd use it. It's on the
> list, but I'm not ready to wander into the quagmire without an account to
> which to bill the time, (yet). It's not that I need to have someone pay for
> me to learn what I don't know, but I do need a motivation to start, and a
> deadline makes the job get done. I haven't used one of these
> 8020-descendants for several years, but a debug monitor written in a dialect
> that supports everything that I might soon use would serve as a motivator.
> >
> > I wouldn't know, I did did the later version for Z80 with TDL opcodes.
> >
> I have a bunch of TDL stuff, but have never used it myself.
> >
> > >know. It's not enough that the 8080 and Z80 are already supported,
> > since
> >
> what for? There are native tools that are completely useable.
> >
> > Also 8088 and maybe later.
> >
> > >I'll only need to use the 8080, which, BTW, it's not obvious that the
> > >Hi-Tech 'C' supports. As I said, if I'm going to wander into the
> > quagmire,
> >
> >
> > I avoid the quagmire and use asm.
> >
> > >the near future. I'm quite sure nobody is going to hire me to generate
> > code
> > >for the Z80 or 8080. I've been known to write code in assembler as
> > well,
> > >but haven't done anything for hire in about 10 years that has required
> > Z80
> > >or 8080 coding.
> >
> >
> > While I understand the desire it's all outside the scope of the original
> > problem to test and apparently use a bunch of 8085 multibus cards.
> >
> > Oh, Z80 is still out there as Z180, Z380 and Rabbit for embedded
> > apps and CPU library cores in gate arrays.
> >
> I don't see that as a justification for paying attention to them. The 650x
> core is out there too, only at 5-10 MIPS in a core and at about half that
> pin-compatible version. The core is significantly smaller than the Z80
> equivalent, though it's because it has fewer resources. Performance,
> however, is considerably better. That might depend on how it's to be used,
> however. The Rabbit is promising, but it's sole-sourced.
> >
> > Allison
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 02 2000 - 16:59:44 GMT