Dave wrote:
>Sort of along the lines of if ASM is 100% then C would be 90% ie
10% wasted
or inefficient code and say basic might be 75%.


I got paid a good amount of money to take a 1.6K program written in
Microengineering labs PicBasic and squeeze it into a 1K program using C. I
was amazed at how inefficient the ASM generated by the Basic compiler was,
for instance it used the FSR register to work with all variables.

Now, C will never be as tight as ASM written by a good coder.  But most of
us (except for Scott Datallo) are not the greatest ASM coders ever
spawned, so how efficient is our ASM code anyway?  I think you will not
see a huge difference between C and ASM unless your ASM is pretty good,
considering that C compilers can do some tricky optomization you might not
think of.  Your productivity will be far higher using C (or PicBasic for
that matter) and that counts for a lot.

Now, I don't look forward to writing a printf() function in ASM, so I use
C for pretty much everything.

-- Lawrence Lile





Dave King <kingdws@SHAW.CA>
Sent by: pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
09/26/02 04:33 AM
Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list


        To:     PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
        cc:
        Subject:        [PIC]: How efficient Asm vs PB etc

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.