Walter, I was kidding. I know your stuff is good.

--Bob


Walter Banks wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Re-read what I said it was a very different statement. The statement was about
> translating an ASM program to a HLL. In that process the HLL will generate
> equal of less code. It basically negates the need to switch to asm for pure code
> efficiency reasons. It has some portability advantages as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> w..
>
>
> Bob Axtell wrote:
>
>   
>> Walter Banks wrote:
>>     
>>> We make sure that any asm program can be written in equal or less space
>>> in a HLL language before each compiler release. (This is true for the
>>> MPC that is about to be released as well) 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.  (Compiler optimizations may reduce the generated code)
>>>
>>>       
>> I am, frankly, utterly speechless. This is the most amazing statement I
>> have ever read.That pretty well
>> nails it. A high level language that is equal to or always beats
>> assembler. Well- like they say- if you live
>> long enough, you've seen everything. All that's left is to kiss the
>> blarney stone.
>>
>> I just gotta buy your stuff <G>.
>>
>> --Bob Axtell
>>
>> --
>> 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