Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: Grant Edwards <grante@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:00:42 -0000
On 2006-08-04, FreeRTOS.org <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David Kelly wrote:
compiler. I looked a lot at the output of avr-gcc. It never wrote
assembly that I could improve enough to justify the effort to rewrite in
assembly. Once or twice I changed a C expression for better assembly
Mmm, maybe. I'm currently evaluating avrgcc (with which I have a lot of
experience) against IAR and Rowley (with which I have relatively little
experience on AVR targets). There _are_ differences.
One big difference:
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.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow! Maybe I should
at have asked for my Neutron
visi.com Bomb in PAISLEY--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: Ulf Samuelsson
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: larwe
- 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
- PIC versus AVR
- Prev by Date: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Next by Date: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Previous by thread: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Next by thread: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|