---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id AC948874008E; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:57:40 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <17.00CC6903@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:57:32 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 9367 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:57:26 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 1892; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:56:40 -0500 Received: from tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.74] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with SMTP ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:56:39 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net Received: from amd1200 ([64.231.209.178]) by tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with SMTP id <20040131165642.MOHJ20179.tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net@amd1200> for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:56:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:56:46 -0500 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Herbert Graf Subject: Re: [PIC]: Hitech PICCLITE state machine optimization To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <004101c3e7f9$756a2770$0300a8c0@main> Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856691 > Herbert Graf wrote: > > I don't want it smaller "for fun", I'm running out of code > > space (as usual) have many more features I want to add. > > Then ditch the compiler. You've already wasted more time trying > to get the > compiler to emit reasonable code than it would have taken to write in > assembler. I disagree. For the moment you are correct, but very soon I'll need to add some stuff that would take me a LONG time to develop in assembly (the writing of it would be quick but the debugging would be "interesting"). I still do assembly for certain projects, but C is "easier" to get going, with the con of being "bigger" and less efficient, so at the beginning I evaluate whether going with C or doing it asm is the better choice. I've made my choice for this project and I've had no reason to diverge, yet. FWIW I'm not stubborn about it, I've had one project which started in ASM and was moved to C (due to the complex nature of the FAT file system). I've also had a project where I started in C and moved to ASM. I'm pretty good at converting code from one to the other! :) I know YOU don't "like" compilers, but that's no reason for noone else to like them. TTYL ---------------------------------- Herbert's PIC Stuff: http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/ -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu .