| ??? 02/06/06 14:02 Read: times |
#109293 - have been designed to fit C Responding to: ???'s previous message |
if you want to use a processor that is "designed to fit C" have a look at the Philips XA which can do
struct1.var7 = struct2.var3; in one instruction 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. While this may be true (I did not check) is it relevant? Is the effort going to be in supporting those that buy 2 chips or those that buy 1.000.000. I have no doubt that those that develop SDCC are dedicated individuals, but IAR working for profit has a stronger motive. Thus the IAR compiler is much more efficient than SDCC. The world is not an ideal place, live with it. Erik PS comparing IAR and Keil for the '51 it would be real interesting to see what IAR would "brag about" if Keil entered the AVR market (fat chance). |
| 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 |