Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: "Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 20:11:19 +0200
AVRGCC - single stack, does something odd when making function calls.
IAR, Rowley, ImageCraft - separate call and data stacks to prevent the
necessity for the above odd thing.
And yet people claim the AVR was designed to be C-friendly.
I've looked at AVR code generaged by GCC and IAR. The AVR is
not C-friendly. It may not be actively hostile like the 8051
or PIC, but it's not C friendly.
Any processor that falls over when you attempt to do any
pointer manipulation isn't C-friendly.
--
You are probably saying that an 8 bit architecture is inherently
C-unfriendly.
If you start in the other end: How do you make an 8 bit architecture which
is C-friendly
you may come to a different conclusion.
From this viewpoint it is "C-friendly" to use 2 instructions for 16 bitoperations
and 4 instructions to do 32 bit operations.
--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
This is intended to be my personal opinion which may,
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: Grant Edwards
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: Grant Edwards
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: Grant Edwards
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- References:
- PIC versus AVR
- From: mc
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: David Kelly
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: larwe
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: FreeRTOS.org
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: Grant Edwards
- PIC versus AVR
- Prev by Date: lcd interfacing
- Next by Date: LAN91C111 AND RJ45
- Previous by thread: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Next by thread: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|