Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: Grant Edwards <grante@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:06:54 -0000
On 2006-08-04, Ulf Samuelsson <ulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
After thinking more about the question, yes, an 8-bit
architecture is inherently more C-unfriendly than one which
supports "pointer-length" operations.
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.
Start at yet another end again: why pick an 8-bit architecture
if you're using a language or writing an application that needs
to do a lot of 16-bit operations? Something like an MSP430
(16-bit) or H8 (16/32 bit) is cheaper than an AVR, and makes
life easier. I particularly like the H8/300 which provides
atomic read/write of 32-bit variables (long integers and
floats): that eliminates the requirements for a lot of mutexes.
From this viewpoint it is "C-friendly" to use 2 instructions
for 16 bit operations and 4 instructions to do 32 bit
operations.
Not as C-friendly as using 1. :)
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! MY income is ALL
at disposable!
visi.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: steve
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: Ulf Samuelsson
- 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
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: Ulf Samuelsson
- PIC versus AVR
- Prev by Date: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Next by Date: Re: AVR trivia question
- Previous by thread: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Next by thread: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|