Re: What micros do you actually hate to work with?


"Jim Granville" <no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:452c35c9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Frank Bemelman wrote:
"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:IlVWg.21517$Ij.7449@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Generally speaking, asm is dead. Generally, using C will produce
better code in less time. Generally, with less than tiny asm
projects, a C version will give you a smaller footprint.
Generally, using asm is a waste of time and energy and
produces lower quality code.


Not dead at all. There are cases where you must be sure to control
something in x machine cycles plus/minus zero. But that would be more
like using the uC as a logic chip.


Generally speaking, my dear. I know about cases where a 74HCT74
beats every processor no matter how clever you program it.

Hey, I shouted *years* ago on this newsgroup "asm is dead". Seems
there is a little bit more concensus now.

Now I could start shouting about C is dead, use C++ instead,
but I think that is too much for today.

I wouldn't call ASM dead - Walter's example shows that it has got
more accessible : another usefull choice, as well as InLine ASM ...

I said 'generally', several times.

All uC HLL users certainly should KNOW assembler.

In C versus ASM, the ASM camp always throw in those examples
where a very speedy/tight piece of software is needed. Such are
more a matter of being smart rather than the language you use.
In most cases (if not all) it is only a very small portion of
your project. When writing that portion of software, and only
when the compiled result is not satifying, it is time to have
a look at the compiled result. And you have to know a little
bit about what you are working with. Using 32 bit longs on a
8 bit uP results in long and slow code. Since it is such a
hassle to work with 32 bit longs in assembler for an 8 bit uP,
such mistakes are not made in ASM. In ASM you are more aware of
that. Once you are familiar with you compiler and target, you
don't have to check that often anymore.

Perhaps if you meant 'Vendor assembler mnemonics', and
Label: JMP Label,
then yes, that subset of assembler is being used less.

A *lot* less than less.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)


.

Relevant Pages

  • optimizers are overrated
    ... I started learning ASM not long ago to improve my understanding of the ... The first function uses a typical C style loop to ... which one is more efficient all you guys would reply "the compiler will most ... so my "write C like ASM" optimization worked. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • XML-based object orientated pre-Assembler
    ... I have been promising an object orientated ASM IDE for a while now. ... Trying to make the best of what is already here, I have made a compiler, ... that will parse XML code and output ASM files. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: C++ in ternms of C
    ... >about class and struct difference. ... How is the private and public part ... I tried to analise the ASM file produ ced my the VC++ compil er. ... >epresented by the c++ compiler in translation to intermediate stage. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.language)
  • Re: [OT] Sed and Awk
    ... including leaving out the compiler and the libs necessary to ... then ASM would be the way to go. ... > debugging a suspected compiler bug? ... > the same assembly as nested ifs from my target compiler). ...
    (comp.unix.shell)
  • Re: TI 28xx compiler intrinsics / inline assembly / other ways to help the compiler be efficient
    ... just 10 CPU cycles is 0.4% of the CPU. ... getting a sense how the compiler handles ... Keeping C with C and asm with asm is much better both from the style and the efficiency standpoints. ... The most dumb way to do that is by passing a pointer to the asm function. ...
    (comp.dsp)