On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 17:07, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > Weird how you have to prod the compiler to generate something it should
> > have inferred fro the PA_DR register which is only 8 bits.
> >
> Not really.  Standard C rules, you know - stuff frequently is converted
> to data types bigger than they need to be.  I'm not sure whether it's
> considered a bug in an expression like this, but probably not...
>
> Also, it's clear that the ez80 stuff is aimed at "bigger machine source
> compatibility"; presumably they decided it was less important to use
> short and efficient data types, so that random tcp/ip applications
> would be more likely to work with little effort...

I guess, but coming from the PIC world, where optimization is key, this
sort of behaviour seems silly. After all, we ARE compiling for a very
resource limited chip, adding bloat just so a POSSIBLE future
application of the same code is 1% easier seems absolutely horrid,
foolish and just plain dumb. I believe the reason is just this compiler
isn't as good in quality as some of the PIC compilers. Shame really.
TTYL

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body