Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ?

regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)
10 Mar 1996 01:02:16 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[14 earlier articles]
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? thinklab@earth.usa.net (1996-03-08)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? tchannon@black.demon.co.uk (Tim Channon) (1996-03-08)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? koopman@cs.cmu.edu (1996-03-08)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? hbaker@netcom.com (1996-03-08)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? mac@coos.dartmouth.edu (1996-03-08)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? cdg@nullstone.com (1996-03-08)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? regnirps@aol.com (1996-03-10)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? rjridder@knoware.nl (Robert Jan Ridder) (1996-03-10)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? rfg@monkeys.com (1996-03-14)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? sberg@camtronics.com (1996-03-14)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? bobduff@world.std.com (1996-03-14)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? bobduff@world.std.com (1996-03-14)
Re: C code .vs. Assembly code for Microcontrollers/DSPs ? john.r.strohm@BIX.com (1996-03-15)
[29 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.dsp
Date: 10 Mar 1996 01:02:16 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
References: 96-03-069
Keywords: architecture, optimize, comment
Posted-Date: 9 Mar 1996 14:29:08 -0500
Received-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:29:12 -0500

I have been using Cosmic C (formerly called intermetrics Whitesmith C)
for the 68HC11. Their newest release produces code like a good
assembly programmer with occasional foibles like expanding 8 bit
signed numbers to 16 bits but sometomes it is so clever I can't be
sure if it is really "worse" than I would be. "Hello World" is about
49 bytes total--no extra run-time code is needed. When a call can
have its arguments in a register it doesn't push anything, so the
overhead of "stack frames" is very low.


Charlie Springer
[Wow, I had no idea the Whitesmith's compiler was still alive. -John]
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.