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



On Oct 10, 10:58 pm, "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijks...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<cbarn24...@xxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1160466087.287511.121520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Oct 10, 3:07am, "stapleton" <alier...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 "PhilW" <electr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:452ac796$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 I agree. Historically, C took twice the space of assembly,
 but modern optimized C compilers have gotten that down to just 20%.
 Unless, that extra 20% code space is a MUST, then its hard to justify
 NOT using C over assembly.

Not true, even now C is much bigger than 2 times code space. TheI don't believe that, show us an example.

Well thats not easy but I'll try. Some years ago I was making motor
controlers, a required function was to produce an internal 8 bit number
representing the true rms value of the motor current. Given the
instantanous value is already stored in a byte and can be updated as
often as you require, compile a C code fragment to perform that
funtion. if I remember correctly it was around 60bytes on an ST9 but
lets see how you get on.



biggest difference shows up in small projects where it can easily reach
the times 10 factor.Wrong.

The efficiency of C is closely related to the average size of functions and
their
complexity. Large, complex functions incur slightly more overhead than small
and simple functions. In large projects the number of large and complex
functions increases, while they are less frequent in small projects, so the
efficiency of C actually *increases* on smaller projects.

Wilco

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What micros do you actually hate to work with?
    ... but modern optimized C compilers have gotten that down to just 20%. ... even now C is much bigger than 2 times code space. ... efficiency of C actually *increases* on smaller projects. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: [OT] PostLisp, a language experiment
    ... some compilers might compile the ... > of the name is really irrelevant to any discussion of efficiency. ... my discussion with John Doty was based on stack ... apparently no runtime checks for stack mismatches, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: PIC Assembler.
    ... PL/M was. ... Check the efficiency of the code they produce. ... The top quality C compilers can produce superbly tight and efficient ... but on your average project the efficiency of your HLL won't ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: PIC Assembler.
    ... PL/M was. ... Check the efficiency of the code they produce. ... The top quality C compilers can produce superbly tight and efficient ... I think people fret too much and quite possibly erroneously assume that assembler will ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Im getting frustrated and angry!
    ... If it at least divulged the information we could build tools that would achieve correctness and efficiency. ... Modern C/C++ compilers don't do the dependency checking but they at least provide a way to get all the information you need to do the dependency checking. ... Jikes supported producing makefile dependencies, but it was incomplete and as I said makefile dependencies can't express the complexities of Java's compilation model. ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)