| ??? 07/12/12 07:16 Modified: 07/12/12 07:19 Read: times |
#187911 - as far as the '51 goes Responding to: ???'s previous message |
1. C++ new() and delete() may generate more code than malloc() and free(), but that's becuase they do more.
2. Using heap for dynamic storage is a bad idea in an embedded system regardless of whether you are using C or C++. Using pooled memory is safe, and easier to implement in C++ than in C. as far as the '51 goes, irrelevant, using dynamic storage or pooled memory is processor overload but can generate a lot of code why (again for the '51) jump through heaps just to "avoid what bloats" again here is the thing that is (almost) always overlooked: a coffeemaker (>1k code) is an embedded system and a cellphone ( often 1M+ of code) is an embedded system, thus "this is good for embedded systems" without a qualifier is total balooney. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Who the hell uses C++ in embedded systems... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| So? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| beware of (verbal) inflation. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not as many as some would think. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 2% don't know | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Same same | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Surveys | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Me! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Using tools that only supports C? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Tools and MISRA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C++ "better than C" for embedded systems | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| as far as the '51 goes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| As far as '51 goes - C++ is still viable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| class vs source | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I did say "smallish" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Overkill? | 01/01/70 00:00 |