| ??? 02/03/06 17:32 Modified: 02/03/06 17:42 Read: times |
#109109 - I dont know where to reply! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
So, I am replying to my own post. Well, well, inclusion of AVR in the thread! avr-gcc can compile even to a target 90s1200, which doesnt even have a stack!(yes, there is only 'three level hardware stack' in this derivative, which means that only a maximum of three recursive function calls).
On the other hand, Atmel claims AVR architecture to be optimised for C(or higher level) compilers, and there are some intricacies in the AVR instruction set due to this! And since the code optimising section of GCC is touched often in new releases of GCC, the code size shrinks!(if not to a bigger level, but atleast somewhat better). One more interesting fact about Atmel: 89xx series '51 core, 90xx series AVR core, 91xx series with ARM core! counting up!! Regards, Vignesh |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| GNU gcc compiler for 8052 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sdcc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| And never will be | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hmm well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Stack Size | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Is it so because.. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| processors supported by gcc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The reason... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bigstack | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Probably not | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Bigger Stack | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| how much is enough? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Who? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| but who??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| only preprocessor | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Successful? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| routinely | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The AVR tinys have no ram | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not me | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Wheel re-invention | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I suppose | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sdcc - where to start | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sorry | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No stack required | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| reentrancy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The right tool for the job | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: The right tool for the job | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Good point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ... but who cares, anyway? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sad, but true! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not convincing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have been designed to fit C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| it IS relevant | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not rteally | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| choices | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ...and Pascal | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| If you are planning to make 1.000.000 un | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Choices | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| naah... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yup | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh $8 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I don't buy that one | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
you have to work with what you get | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Even assembler needs justification | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you DID use the %! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| as to above | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| tradeoffs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I'd buy Keil if I had to make 2 units | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| my original point was... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dan, you missed a detail :) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| In good company | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| deadlines | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| assumptions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| could not say it better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nothing new there, then! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh well, more words | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Normal | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have a look | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yes, but most want their tool | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I dont know where to reply! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| as so often before | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Seen it so many times | 01/01/70 00:00 |