Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- From: "Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:29:00 +0100
"Jim Granville" <no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:47c75702$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David Brown wrote:
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
Which of course require a new compiler...
No, it would mean a *change* in the compiler.
That is what I meant.
If little-used
instructions had to be dropped to leave room in the instruction space for
the additional features, then you break backwards compatibility. But
that's hardly something new - small breakages occur with changes to the
memory maps, the introduction of the 3-byte return stack, and the
differences to the eeprom access methods for every new generation of AVR.
Taking advantage of the new instructions would mean a fair number of
changes to compilers - but there would be no problem generating correct
code.
I think it is all related to project management/resources.
Even if things are not perfect, it may be considered good enough,
and that resources are better used elsewhere.
Would Atmel benefit, by introducing a few more instructions,
and delay the introduction of the X-mega by 1 month/3 months/6 months a
year?
--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
This is intended to be my personal opinion which may,
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
.
- References:
- X-Mega AVRs are here!
- From: Ulf Samuelsson
- Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- From: linnix
- Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- From: John Devereux
- Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- From: David Brown
- Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- From: Ulf Samuelsson
- Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- From: David Brown
- Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- From: Jim Granville
- X-Mega AVRs are here!
- Prev by Date: Re: Microcontroller for ENC28J60
- Next by Date: Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- Previous by thread: Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- Next by thread: Re: X-Mega AVRs are here!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|