On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:05:40 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On 10/19/07, Vitaliy wrote: >> Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >>> Of course this depends on your production numbers... if you're >>> designing for 100k a month, you use a different approach than when >>> you're designing for 1k a year. The balance between development time >>> and hardware cost is different. (I'm mostly in the lower number >>> sector, which moves the balance towards quicker development. With 1k >>> a year, it takes quite a while >>> to pay two weeks of code optimization that resulted in $1 less >>> hardware cost -- with 100k a month, this is a no-brainer :) >>> >> >> Very true. >> > > And the thing is often this 1k per year project need to be supported in > 10 years (often the case in Industrial Automation market). Therefore > maintainability is quite important. In the last job,a Germany colleague > used CCS compiler and he had to specifically archive that particular > version of CCS C compiler along with the codes. He found that different > version of CCS C compiler produced different code which might or might > not work. That is about 3 years ago so I am not sure about the situation > now. I've found that to be true with pretty much every tool set we use here. It's been our policy to archive the tool set used to create the production code at every release. It's the only way we can guarantee that we can re- create the code at a later date. We also put a note of which development tools and version were used to create the code in each header file for each module in a software project. This strategy has paid dividends quite a few times. Just recently we had a client request a code change to a product that was designed by us back in the mid-1980's. We had the tools and code archived away and were able to do it, much to their surprise. Matt Pobursky Maximum Performance Systems -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist