Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netnews
From: Chuck Rice <carice@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: 6811 Compiler
Message-ID: <94060817581500065@netcom.com>
Sender: netnews@netcom.com (USENET Administration)
Reply-To: carice@netcom.com
Organization: None
References: <1994Jun8.122832.29831@lds.loral.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 02:58:15 GMT
X-Mailer: rnMac v1.3b2
Lines: 59


In article <1994Jun8.122832.29831@lds.loral.com>, Brian Dombrowski, 5424 
writes:

> 
> In article cf6@delphinium.cig.mot.com, kulpcm@rtsg.mot.com (Christopher 
M. Kulp) writes:
> > I am just starting to build my first digital project using a Motorola 
MC6811
> > series microprocessor/controller.  Does anyone know where I could find 
a compiler
> > so I don't have to hand assemble to code.  An assembly compiler would 
be the bare
> > minumum, but a Basic or C compiler would be awesome.  Any advice or 
input is
> > appreciated.
> > 
> 
> For starters go back to school ( one other than the one you last 
graduated from )
> and learn the difference between an assembler and a compiler.  They may 
even
> teach this stuff in high school these days.  
> 
> There is no such thing as an assembly compiler.  

Before people flame me too, I am not the original poster, and this does
not have much to do with robotics.

I have always thought that the difference between an assembler and a 
compiler was artificial. They are both language translators. The only 
difference is the level of the translation. Why do you call translating 
from C to object code "compiling" and when you translate from machine 
instructions to object code assembling. And is it still called compiling 
when you translate from C to machine instructions, later to be assembled by 
an "assembler". I have worked on so many different assemblers and compilers 
(and interpreters which are different) that I generally do not make the 
distinction. It all blurs into programming to me. You write the code in the 
language at hand. All languages have the same constructs. You have 
data-movement statements, flow-control statements and comments. Every 
language has them and they all get translated to zeros and ones. One could 
make the argument that assemblers use a one to one translation between 
source code and object code, whereas compilers translate single source code 
statements into multiple object level instructions. But quite often object 
code gets further broken down into micro-code an many machines and thus is 
not really one-to-one. Who knows. 

At any rate, I also will sometimes be found guilty saying compiler when I 
mean assembee and assemble when I mean compiler and I have programmed in C, 
Pascal, Cobol, PL/I, CLIST, REXX, BASIC, 370 assembler, 6502 assembler, 
6811 assembler, SEL 8600 assembler, SLUC, FORTH, FORTRAN, and many others. 
I don't know. Maybe the guy used "assembly compiler" to mean a compiler 
that translated to assembler instead of to object code. 

At any rate, the orignal poster may want to look at 

		cherupakha.media.mit.edu

There are lots of goodies there. -Chuck-
