1. Using DOS floating point (was DOS float still slow on 2.5b)
Dear Eu forum members
I still use Eu DOS on 386 and similar CPUs and would be most
concerned to see software FP discontinued in DOS.
Why DOS and why 386 machines?
DOS - because it's fast, small, and does not use a lot of memory.
Why 386 and 486 etc?
Because many embedded computers still use 386 and 486 CPUs. Most of
the work relates to motion controllers for automating manufacturing
etc.
By using DOS and 386/486 based computers, you can get speed etc that
matches many controllers/computers running Win. You do not need the
fans and cooling required for later processors.
And many control/automation systems do not require the high level of
sophistication often built into Win systems, or would not be
economically justifiable if they needed to support such
computers/software/training/maintenance etc.
While FP may not be used much in my DOS programming (yes - most of
the programming is really integer based), some can require FP.
There is remains an important place for DOS, 386/486 CPUs and hence
FP in Eu for DOS.
I strongly recommend keeping software FP in Eu's DOS component.
--
David Jarvis
On 22 Jan 2005 at 14:51, Robert Craig wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
>
> Verne Tice wrote:
> > Quoting old msg by Robert Craig:
> > > On DOS, Euphoria uses software emulation for floating-point.
> > > This allows ex.exe to run on certain old 386/486 machines that
> > > lacked hardware floating-point. On other platforms floating-
point
> > > hardware is used.
> > >
> > > If you have the Interpreter source, you could build
> > > an ex.exe that uses hardware floating-point.
> >
> > But, Rob's comments relating to msgs about the 2.5a interpreter
> > imply that Rob expects that everyone today has faster, more
modern
> > CPUs (such that load and parse times are insignificant.)
> >
> > However, DOS (ex.exe) Euphoria is still slower than other
platforms
> > when doing float calculations. If everyone is using more modern
> > CPUs, which presumably have float hardware (or built-in hardware
> > float emulation (Does Transmeta processor do floats?), why are
DOS
> > users still paying a float penalty?
>
> That's a good point.
>
> I suppose if you translate/compile with DJGPP you'll
> get hardware f.p. I don't recall.
>
> > Are any Eu DOS programs today running on hardware without
floating
> > point?
>
> Probably a few, but a very tiny percentage.
>
> > Are there any intel compatible CPUs sold within the last 10 yrs
or
> > so without float hardware?
>
> 10 years ago I think a lot of people were still using 486's.
>
> > Rob, please give us users who still program for DOS, at least,
the
> > option to have a DOS version of the Euphoria interpreter and Lib
> > code for translator which will use hardware float.
> >
> > Verne Tice
> > PIII 450MHz, 128MB SDRAM, Win98SE
>
> Do you actually have an app that is floating-point intensive?
> Most programs are integer intensive and won't see any
> significant speed-up from hardware f.p.
>
> It's extra overhead to have to build and test and distribute two
> versions of ex.exe and two versions of each Watcom/DOS
> translator library (PD + registered) with each release,
> especially when the number of people who will notice a
> difference is very small, and with f.p. intensive programs you are
> only going to run 20% or so slower using the interpreter, and maybe
> 30% slower with translated code.
>
> I'm thinking maybe translated programs (ec for Watcom/DOS) will use
> hardware f.p. (only). That's no extra overhead for me. If you need
> your code to run on ancient machines, the interpreter (or binder)
will
> still do the job. (Or maybe it's those ancient machines that really
> *need* translated/compiled programs?)
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
>
>
>
>
2. Re: Using DOS floating point (was DOS float still slow on 2.5b)
David Jarvis wrote:
>
> Dear Eu forum members
>
> I still use Eu DOS on 386 and similar CPUs and would be most
> concerned to see software FP discontinued in DOS.
>
> Why DOS and why 386 machines?
> DOS - because it's fast, small, and does not use a lot of memory.
>
> Why 386 and 486 etc?
> Because many embedded computers still use 386 and 486 CPUs. Most of
> the work relates to motion controllers for automating manufacturing
> etc.
>
> By using DOS and 386/486 based computers, you can get speed etc that
> matches many controllers/computers running Win. You do not need the
> fans and cooling required for later processors.
>
> And many control/automation systems do not require the high level of
> sophistication often built into Win systems, or would not be
> economically justifiable if they needed to support such
> computers/software/training/maintenance etc.
>
> While FP may not be used much in my DOS programming (yes - most of
> the programming is really integer based), some can require FP.
>
> There is remains an important place for DOS, 386/486 CPUs and hence
> FP in Eu for DOS.
>
> I strongly recommend keeping software FP in Eu's DOS component.
I agree wholeheartedly. The engineering dept. where I work use a variety of
processors for our instruments with DOS. My job includes real-time analysis of
the data collected by the instruments. We usually use C but we've also used Turbo
Pascal and QBASIC to do this before and if I'm able to use Euphoria instead I'd
be very happy.
3. Re: Using DOS floating point (was DOS float still slow on 2.5b)
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:48:53 +1100, David Jarvis
<davidj at ultrasmart.org> wrote:
>I still use Eu DOS on 386 and similar CPUs and would be most
>concerned to see software FP discontinued in DOS.
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
Regards,
Pete
4. Re: Using DOS floating point (was DOS float still slow on 2.5b)
On 25 Jan 2005, at 2:02, Pete Lomax wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:48:53 +1100, David Jarvis
> <davidj at ultrasmart.org> wrote:
>
> >I still use Eu DOS on 386 and similar CPUs and would be most
> >concerned to see software FP discontinued in DOS.
> Fair enough, I stand corrected.
Since someone else said something, i'll say i was going to build a dos
cluster. I don't need a multitasking OS. I don't need a pretty gui. I do need
some machine access.
Kat
