Op 09-Oct-16 om 7:50 PM schreef smplx:
> The piclist seems very quite regarding PIC topics lately so I thought I'd
> try to add something interesting.
>
> Before we get bogged down into which is better assembler or high level
> language consider how you would feel about a compiler that generates code
> that is optimised beyond your wildest dreams.
>
> Imagin that you don't need to resort to sneaky tricks or hand crafted
> assembler embedded in your high level code. That you don't need to
> labouriously generate complicated tables in excel or matlab and then
> painstakingly shoehorn them into you high level code. Imagin that you can
> execute thousands of lines of complex code and have the result available
> in the time it takes to execute a single machine cycle. And better still,
> imagin you can do all this without having to learn some new complicated
> language.
>
> Basically it comes down to this: the compiler executes as much user code
> as possible during the compilation process and works out the bare minimum
> that needs to be executed in the target.

Are you aware that this is a feature of C++? It was available for a long=20
time in a rather convoluted form as meta-programming (templates and=20
SFINAE), extended to plain functions in a limited form in C++ 11=20
(single-return-statement functions only), which was generalized in C++ 14.

I don't fully get what you proposed, but in C++ you can use

constexpr auto x =3D y( ... );

which requires that y(...) is evaluated at compile time. Y can be a=20
function, or an object constructor that creates a complex object.

Wouter "Objects? No Thanks!" van Ooijen
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.