wouter van ooijen wrote:

> > The argument basically is if every machine instruction
> > can be coded in the HLL  and generates a single instruction
> > then any asm program can be written in HLL will generate
> > equal or less code.
>
> IMO programming in that way *is* programming is assembler. It might be a
> good idea to do that (programming in assembler) from within a compiled
> language to avoid switching to a different tool, but for the discussion
> such programming should not be considered HLL programming.

I party agree that it is asm programming. Alternatively C for example was
all about implementation and this simply scales the ability to from the
instruction level to semi-abstract HLL data and control structures.
There is one important difference asm programming this way doesn't have the
expectation of direct code to instruction relationship. The compiler
is free to optimize.


> Out of curiosity: does the control the programmer has extend to things
> like memory position and alignment (for PIC jump tables, or for ARM code
> fetch optimization)?

The general answer is yes it does. It is complicated by optimizations
rules in the compiler that is also doing the same things. For the ARM
type fetch optimization most compilers can do a better job than hand
written code. PIC jump tables are interesting as well the compilers
do a good job of address specific code. (Skip always depending on
the LS PC bit is another example )

Walter Banks
--
Byte Craft Limited
 (519) 888-6911
 http://www.bytecraft.com
walter@bytecraft.com



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist