All the thing is that C generates larger and slower code which does not
always meet the target (lack of space or timing). But once again, my
original approach was that you do not have the source, not C, nor Assembly.
In my case I have downloaded a HEX file and wanted to make tiny app for my
RC airplane model for a safer flying. That original project used a 12F683
and I was wondering if I could put it into a 10F200 or 202. (smaller,
lighter and cheaper) It seems that the original prog was written in C as I
have written that disassembler to see what is going inside. It tured out
that this code was full of with redundancy, and could not fit into smaller
equipment -- so I have to rewrite it from scratch, anyway.

But because that disassembler works fine and I am sure it could be extend it
to produce even better job I thought I could go further -- but it seems that
it is far from possible. Maybe just put as many comments to the disassembled
code as possible to make such an implementation easier by the engeneer. I
mean I could put comments like "This routine seems to be EEPROM writing" or
"delay loop takes 5 cycles / 5 ms per iteration". So that using those info
the engeneer could find relevant places faster. And then he/she could
compile that disassembled and reimplemented source.


On 17/07/06, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/17/06, Marcel Birthelmer <marcelb.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> > and then you're basically looking at a PIC supercompiler. That might be
> > interesting.
> >
>
> C is good enough, right? For example, it is relatively easier (comparing
> to
> port PIC16F assembly to PIC18F assembly) to port Hi-Tech PICC code to
> Hi-Tech PICC18.
>
> Regards,
> Xiaofan
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist