"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> writes:
>On 26 Feb 2024 18:35:37 GMT
>Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-02-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:52:26 -0000 (UTC)
>> > Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It can also be argued that MS-DOS or CP/M are not operating systems, but
>> >> rather a program loader and a collection of auxiliary routines, so a
>> >> compilers for these systems might also serve as examples.
>> >
>> > The counter argument is that both include user interfaces and file
>> > systems. But yeah they're borderline.
>>
>> Maybe you could call them (glorified) bootloaders? Those often have user
>> interfaces and at least rudimentary file system support.
>
>
>I don't like such grubby talk.
>
li lo, li lo, it's off to work we go?

On 2024-02-26 18:52, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> schrieb:
>> According to Vansh Kapoor <kapoorvansh200@gmail.com>:
>>> I was reading this book 'Computer Systems' and it made me wander if the compiler exists in Operating system or it can individualy work with the processor main memory
>>> and I/O bridges.
>>
>> It's less common now but there have been plenty of compilers that
>> worked without operating systems. The original FORTRAN compiler ran on
>> an IBM 704, loaded directly from mag tape. When I was using a PDP-8
>> around 1970 it didn't have an operating system but there were
>> assemblers and a Fortran compiler we loaded from paper tape.
>
> It can also be argued that MS-DOS or CP/M are not operating systems, but rather
> a program loader and a collection of auxiliary routines, so a compilers
> for these systems might also serve as examples.

I do not agree.

They are simply primitive oses.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) wrote:

> Agreed. Compilers running on MS-DOS and CP/M were, in general, some of
> the best-behaved software for those systems.

Hmm then there was the CP/M BCPL compiler that depended on running
on a Z80 based CP/M machine because it used the alternate register set to
avoid pushing registers onto the stack - after all CP/M is an 8080 based OS
so nothing should be using them - right?

Then there was the Micromation development system with a bunch of
Z80 boards running CP/M with one running MP/M that took care of job
dispatching when something was put in the background. If it ran out of Z80s
running CP/M it ran tasks itself under MP/M. What a pity that the task
dispatcher written specially for this Z80 based system used the alternate
register set to avoid pushing registers on the stack - after all CP/M is an
8080 based OS so nothing should be using the - right.

We stopped putting BCPL compiles into the background once we worked
out what was crashing the system when we got busy.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 2024-02-27 10:22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
> jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Compilers running on MS-DOS and CP/M were, in general, some of
>> the best-behaved software for those systems.
>
> Hmm then there was the CP/M BCPL compiler that depended on running
> on a Z80 based CP/M machine because it used the alternate register set to
> avoid pushing registers onto the stack - after all CP/M is an 8080 based OS
> so nothing should be using them - right?
>
> Then there was the Micromation development system with a bunch of
> Z80 boards running CP/M with one running MP/M that took care of job
> dispatching when something was put in the background. If it ran out of Z80s
> running CP/M it ran tasks itself under MP/M. What a pity that the task
> dispatcher written specially for this Z80 based system used the alternate
> register set to avoid pushing registers on the stack - after all CP/M is an
> 8080 based OS so nothing should be using the - right.
>
> We stopped putting BCPL compiles into the background once we worked
> out what was crashing the system when we got busy.

Yes, on those systems you could do optimizations based on the particular
hardware available. The most usual was writing to the display memory
directly, for speed. Even for plain text.

Well, today you can do computing using the graphic cards, and that's
probably non generic.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-02-26 18:52, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> schrieb:
>>> According to Vansh Kapoor <kapoorvansh200@gmail.com>:
>>>> I was reading this book 'Computer Systems' and it made me wander if
>>>> the compiler exists in Operating system or it can individualy work
>>>> with the processor main memory
>>>> and I/O bridges.
>>>
>>> It's less common now but there have been plenty of compilers that
>>> worked without operating systems. The original FORTRAN compiler ran on
>>> an IBM 704, loaded directly from mag tape. When I was using a PDP-8
>>> around 1970 it didn't have an operating system but there were
>>> assemblers and a Fortran compiler we loaded from paper tape.
>>
>> It can also be argued that MS-DOS or CP/M are not operating systems, but rather
>> a program loader and a collection of auxiliary routines, so a compilers
>> for these systems might also serve as examples.
>
> I do not agree.
>
> They are simply primitive oses.
>

Back in the old days they might be considered “resident monitors” + IOCS

--
Pete