At 04:13 PM 11/27/96 -0600, you wrote:
>> I was really disappointed/shocked in the performance numbers Scott Edwards
>> quoted in the article; they were something like 1,000x slower than what I
>> would consider a "decent" compiler (I seem to remember that a hand-written
>> assembler could be as much as 1,400x better) for the speed the PIC was
>> running at.  Now, it is 10-50x better than the STAMP, but it's really pretty
>> slow.
>
>Which Pic BASIC was he talking about?  PBASIC from Parallax is an
>interpreter.  The "compile" option merely copies the interpreter and the
>P-Code into a PIC.
>
>There are also one or two true Pic BASIC compilers out there that produce
>native PIC code.

I know 5 PIC Basic "compilers" two of them are "pseudo" ie copy the
interpreter to
PIC code

1 Parallax Compiler: CODE.OBJ resides at 0400h in C58 prog mem
2 PIC Basic Compiler (FED): I think, (never seen, cani prove) is same style
  as Parallax Compiler, ie copies P-CODE to C64 prog mem
3 MEL Basic Compiler: True Compiler, asm output
4 TB84: (James) student project, free in source code form, generates asm 16C84
5 BASX: (Greg) never released, generates asm for 16CXX

Q: which ones you did mean, by two native generating compilers?

 5 was never released,
 4 is useless,
 2 isnt compiler i think,

it leaves us with only one native code generating PIC compiler: 3 from MEL?
and thats only one I can count?
or are there some more compilers? I am really interested if...

>The latter should be much faster than the former.

MEL Basic compiler is pretty much as fast as PIC can be (in native exec)

BTW I am writing a Basic compiler for AT89C2051 seems so easy that I might
just add PIC code generator to it later. Comments?

antti
-- Silicon Studio Ltd.
-- http://www.sistudio.com