| ??? 02/06/06 13:38 Modified: 02/06/06 13:44 Read: times |
#109288 - not convincing Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Neil said:
I s'pose it gives the likes of IAR something to compare against - and something for their marketing departments to capitalise on! ;-) They are either shy or don't know how to do it in a convincing way... IAR website said:
The esults show that GNU avr-gcc 3.4.1 generates on average 68% more code than EWAVR 4.10B. The price difference between ATMega64 and the twice-as-big ATMega128 (so it fits the extra 68% code) is around $2, calculating how many units do you need to sell to get that back is basic math. I think they could do better... Jan Waclawek PS. If I'd be IAR, the first thing I'd try to capitalise is the fact that they have been there when AVR's have been designed to fit C. I'd put it in big red at the front of the page together with the 68% (and other figures),a screenshot and an offering of devkits (with picture) and put the boring features etc. list at the bottom. But I may be terribly wrong, of course... |
| 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 |