At 09:39 3/06/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Anders Widgren wrote:
>>
>> Walter,
>> somehow I don't think I'm going to convince YOU...   :-) Anyway, I
believe the demo comes with some example files...
>>
>> -Anders
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:   Walter Banks [SMTP:walter@bytecraft.com]
>> Sent:   Wednesday, June 02, 1999 1:24 PM
>> To:     Anders Widgren
>> Subject:        Re: "New" optimizing PIC C-compiler:
>>
>> Could you provide me with a source and HEX of a single non trival
>> application
>> that shows off CC5X as having the kind of code generation that you are
>> seeing.
>>
>> Walter Banks
>
>Anders made sweeping claims. I would also like to see
>an example of his research findings.
>
>So, how about it, Anders? Let's have a look and see...
>
>--
>Friendly Regards          /"\
>                          \ /
>Tjaart van der Walt        X  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
>mailto:tjaart@wasp.co.za  / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL
>|--------------------------------------------------|
>|  Cellpoint Systems SA    http://www.cellpt.com   |
>|--------------------------------------------------|
>|     http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html     |
>|             WGS84 : -26.0124 +28.1129            |
>|             Voice : +27 (0)11 2545100            |
>|--------------------------------------------------|

I agree, I have seen this clain too many times to be nothing more than
dissapointed, or having to change my coding style to that of creating
simple sieve type programmes in order to gain the "Optimisation" that the
compiler is appaerntly able to provide.
A demo that is not able to supply optimisation is not a demo of the
compilers ability. I have seen some like the Franklin (Keil) that do the
full optimisation (No external file linking), and limited code size, but
produe opcodes mixed with source, thus youi can look at the results, use
them if you strip out all the stuff, hey but what do you know No startup code!


Dennis