PPA wrote:
> Nobody (I think) is coding in "pure" C (or "pure" Pascal) - whatever
> that means -
> because everybody want the bells and wistles of the compiler
> toolchain they
> have choosen; if they don't manage toolchain specificities (a big
> work),
> when they want to change there is always a bigest work to do to adapt
> their
> supposed to be "portable" sources...
> In Pascal this is the same, a lot of $IFDEF and so on... No less no
> more.

I do it a different way.  First, my Pascal has deliberate portability
features built in.  This includes data types that are defined to map in
certain ways to the target hardware or OS and are therefore different on
different implementations.  The rest is done thru our libaries.  We have
abstracted operations that underlying systems do for you, but each does in a
different way.  The real job of porting applications between systems is in
porting this layer once to each system.  The applications then just work.

Since the libraries are designed to be ported, it's not that hard.  I just
checked, and the unique code for the Win32 implementation is under 8500
lines.  This includes I/O, system functions like multi-threading, thread
interlocks, time, etc, except graphics.  There's a whole seperate library
for graphics.  This environment has been to Apollo Aegis, 4 different
flavors of Unix, and Windows.  All this time the applications themselves
haven't changed and just work on all these different systems with virtually
no compile time customizations.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist