Peter L. Peres wrote:
>...
> The problem is, you have the syntax, you make code from it, then what ?
> Due to optimization each state machine must be practically rewritten by
> hand for each micro it runs on. Also requirements are different, input
> sources can change, you usually can't afford to read all inputs and mask
> what is not needed etc etc.

This is completely analogous to writing a <insert-language-of-choice-here>
compiler that targets multiple devices and/or architectures.  It's generally
attacked by having good modularity and separation of the "front end" (e.g.
syntax, parsing or graphic input, etc) from the "back end" (code-generation
and optimization).  Standard stuff.  To handle most of what would be
required for state machine execution in the PIC domain, I'd suggest that a
very small common instruction subset could be employed that would "cover"
multiple families (perhaps not "all", but what couldn't be common should be
addressed by a "choice" of back-end module.
As far as "input sources could change", I'm not sure what you meant by that.
Jim
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

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