What would be your recommendations for a C compiler? - I am not opposed to
using one - esp. for things such as developing PID loops which generally
require a lot of register shifting and are difficult to optimise.  I know
what you mean by almost unreadable optimisations too - such things as using
the carry bit and digit carry bit in a hidden way on successive rrf, rlf
statements to set a register in mirror to the original - a trick often used
in 4bit LCD mode for example - the first time I saw this, my brain bled
before I could understand what was going on ...


-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list
[mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Michael Rigby-Jones
Sent: Thursday, 6 February 2003 6:43 pm
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PIC]: C Language V's Assembler


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian McLean [SMTP:ianmclean@OPTUSHOME.COM.AU]
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:38 AM
> To:   PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [PIC]: C Language V's Assembler
>
> The PIC maths libraries are not difficult to incorporate and use - for
> real optomization - use assembly, for speed of development, use C, but
> assembly is still the choice.
> Just my opinion ...
>
I think your opinion would change if you used a decent compiler.  As Andy
Kunz said, the compiler can make optimisations that you'd never dream of as
the code would be virtualy unreadable.  OTOH sometimes there is no
alternative to using ASM, but that dosen't happen often, and when it does
the assembly can be put inline or linked with your C project.

Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads