🚀 go-pugleaf

   Whether Motorola should feel proud of their compiler is a question
that is different from What is this stuff on a computer in Finland.
My answer to the former is No, but I do hope you'll keep trying.

   I paid $700 cash for the original attempt.  Before deciding whether
to upgrade, I asked Motorola some questions. No, it does not do pipeline
optimization.  No, data in x, y, p memory spaces are not supported; you
have to choose either x or y and not both.  No, it does not have a
fractional data type (can that really be true?).  Well, I decided to
hold off and stick with the one I made from Dave Dunfield's 8086 C
compiler.

   Motorola has won every design-in I've done since the chip was
announced, except when the decision was based on price rather than
technical merit.  A DSP56000 can do three things in one instruction. 
But if the compiled code takes ten instructions to do one thing, what
good is that?  I didn't buy a DSP chip to go slow.  I won't buy
software that makes it go slow.

   Perhaps TI is the only DSP company that can *afford* a real compiler
project.  TI, with its near-monopoly market share, has improved its
software from awful in 1982 to very good in 1992.  (But I can't use
their chip any more! It always seems to work out slower than the
alternatives.) Meanwhile the other companies presumably do what software
support they can, but they sure leave a lot to wish for.  I say, Never
mind the windows and COFF and source level debuggers, just give us a
better compiler.