Re: real time?
Posted by
Ted
on 1999-06-29 13:23:33 UTC
rtr@...
----------
The advantage is your ability to ignore the restrictions imposed by the
layers of software and increase the speed to at least the speed we were
able to get out of a commodore 64.
We used one of the Basics to get the machine running, then benchmarked and
wrote machine language for the axis run code. The beauty of this approach
is that we knew our code and the machine worked before we put the effort
into the tremendous speedup we got with the machine language.
We did a linear Bresenham Algorithm and the speed quadrupled in machine
language, as I remember. Warning - memory is the first thing to go.
Debug worked fine as I learned to do machine language in hex. Don't
inflict such torchure on yourself today. If your time is worth more than
two bits an hour, get an assembler.
Ted Robbins.
----------
> From: Jon Elson <jmelson@...>school
> To: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] real time?
> Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 12:32 PM
>
> From: Jon Elson <jmelson@...>
>
>
>
> TADGUNINC@... wrote:
>
> > From: TADGUNINC@...
> >
> > Ted,
> > Thank you for the info.
> > A short follow up question on programming. When I was in electronics
> > back in "81", we had to write a machine lang. program on the "vic 20"pressed and
> > computer to get the input from the key board decide what key was
> > send it to the monitor. basically it did just what you do when typin onthe
> > key board now. Are there was to access the machine level on 286's,386's,
> > Pentium's etc.....?would use
>
> Machine level? That's what you are doing all the time, really. You
> an assembler program to convert mnemonics to x86 machine code, thenmake it
> run it through a linker program, and execute it. If you really want to
> dirty, use the DOS Debug program, and write your machine code inhexadecimal
> bytes in memory, then give the G xxx command to execute it.get your feet wet. The disadvantage is the length of time it takes you.
>
> Of course, Windows discourages this, and Linux discourages it even more,
> but you can certainly do it.
>
>
> Jon
>
> Again Jon is right. Any assembly language text and debug will let you
The advantage is your ability to ignore the restrictions imposed by the
layers of software and increase the speed to at least the speed we were
able to get out of a commodore 64.
We used one of the Basics to get the machine running, then benchmarked and
wrote machine language for the axis run code. The beauty of this approach
is that we knew our code and the machine worked before we put the effort
into the tremendous speedup we got with the machine language.
We did a linear Bresenham Algorithm and the speed quadrupled in machine
language, as I remember. Warning - memory is the first thing to go.
Debug worked fine as I learned to do machine language in hex. Don't
inflict such torchure on yourself today. If your time is worth more than
two bits an hour, get an assembler.
Ted Robbins.
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------discussion of shop built systems in the above catagories.
>
> Attention ONElist list owners.
> http://www.onelist.com
> Check out the new "DEFAULT MODERATED STATUS" option. See homepage.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Welcome to CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@...,an unmodulated list for the
> To Unsubscribe, read archives, change to or from digest.
> Go to: http://www.onelist.com/isregistered.cgi
> Log on, and you will go to Member Center, and you can make changes there.
> bill,
> List Manager
Discussion Thread
TADGUNINC@x...
1999-06-28 20:07:53 UTC
Re: real time?
Jon Elson
1999-06-28 23:27:43 UTC
Re: real time?
Ted
1999-06-29 01:58:58 UTC
Re: real time?
TADGUNINC@x...
1999-06-29 07:50:15 UTC
Re: real time?
WAnliker@x...
1999-06-29 10:24:43 UTC
Re: real time?
Jon Elson
1999-06-29 12:32:18 UTC
Re: real time?
Tim Goldstein
1999-06-29 12:59:03 UTC
Re: real time?
Ted
1999-06-29 13:23:33 UTC
Re: real time?