Re: PIC versus AVR


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.

Regards,
Richard.

http://www.FreeRTOS.org
for Cortex-M3, ARM7, ARM9, HCS12, H8S, MSP430
Microblaze, Coldfire, AVR, x86, 8051 & PIC18 * * * *


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PIC versus AVR
    ... AVRGCC - single stack, does something odd when making function calls. ... IAR, Rowley, ImageCraft - separate call and data stacks to prevent the ... And yet people claim the AVR was designed to be C-friendly. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: ARM IDE
    ... I ordered a kit from IAR to test things out and so far so good. ... But that is not the specific GCC that Rowley use. ... Compared to IAR at 1540 GBP ... BTW IAR have over 30 dev kits and many many examples and BSP's they also support a very wide range of debuggers and RTOS awareness in the debugger. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: ARM IDE
    ... I ordered a kit from IAR to test things out and so far so good. ... But that is not the specific GCC that Rowley use. ... Compared to IAR at 1540 GBP ... And that is for a GCC compiler from Rowley. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)