On 29/06/2011 11:33, Oli Glaser wrote:
> On 29/06/2011 10:21, Michael Watterson wrote:
>> I've found all the C compilers produce much larger and sometimes buggy c=
ode.
> Interesting - do you have some examples of this? Do you really mean
> every single C compiler?
> How much larger? How many more bugs?
> I would be interested to see the comparisons if you have some links.
>
I didn't mean ALL c compilers.. Came out wrong:
I meant ones I tried,
Various HiTech C over the years
Microchip's 18F
Mikroe
Something else...

C is designed for "normal" kind of CPU. the 10F to 16F are definitely=20
not ideal (I've been using C on 8051, Z80, x86, ARM, MIPS, Controllers,=20
Linux, DOS, Windows etc since MS C in 1988 on DOS).  C also designed as=20
a general purpose portable "Macro Assembler like tool" to enable easy=20
port of UNIX and UNIX apps to different CPUs.

JAL specifically designed for controller type applications and 16F in=20
particular. It has maybe 3 or 4 less usual constructs that make life=20
nice for controller programming  ('get, 'put, the "at" to alias a=20
variable to address of a different type of variable, a bit like a C=20
union, using 'get and 'put to implement array indexed device drivers)

So you'd expect JAL to do better than C on 10F to 18F. If there was a=20
JAL for other higher end PICs, MIPS, ARM etc, I'd expect it to be a=20
poorer option than C for those CPUs.


--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.