Re: KEil bought by ARM

"larwe" <zwsdotcom@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Chris Hills wrote:
>
> > Actually Open Source is no match for good commercial compilers in so
> > many ways.
>
> Mmm, you know I was rebuilding an old version of arm-elf-gcc just a
> couple of days ago, and I thought "If only this was a proprietary
> compiler, I'd be able to spend two weeks and thousands of dollars
> finding the right dongle version on eBay - and an old computer to work
> with it - so that I could run this old compiler again for a legacy
> project that only needs a two-line code change".

Also, even if you accept that the commercial compilers are "better" at
code generation (I have not seen this):

- gcc is getting better and better. Presumably there is a limit to how
good a commercial compiler can be, so any gap should be closing.

- code space and MHz are getting cheaper and cheaper, so it makes less
and less difference anyway as time goes on.

- It is getting easier and easier to justify using 32 bit parts (like
ARM) in new designs. I would expect the architecture of these parts
to more closely match gcc's abilities than, say, the 8051 where Keil
have been the leader.

--

John Devereux
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KEil bought by ARM
    ... >>> Actually Open Source is no match for good commercial compilers in so ... > - gcc is getting better and better. ... > - code space and MHz are getting cheaper and cheaper, ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: KEil bought by ARM
    ... > Chris Hills wrote: ... >> Actually Open Source is no match for good commercial compilers in so ... > with it - so that I could run this old compiler again for a legacy ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Richard Stallman is responsible for the shrinking economy
    ... Then the same goes for commercial compilers. ... to saying that the commercial compiler vendors have a shared code base ... I think most of us know that closed source vendors regularly use ... code licensed from other places (just as open source developers use ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)