gnupic@linuxhacker.org

Rick,

Other C conpilers , for instance gcc, have the volatile directive. I 
know nothing about the SDCC other
than downloading, installing, and compiling a small test. Nothing in the 
produced code  that makes me
want to give up on straight assembler for PIC sytle processors.

George

Rick Mann wrote:

> I appreciate that the code generated by the compiler is likely to be 
> less efficient than hand-crafted code, at least with simple processor 
> architectures (complex RISC processors like the PowerPC often end up 
> with superior code from a compiler). In an ideal world, the compiler 
> would generate code just as tight as my original.
>
> However, I'm willing to forego the code size expansion, so long as the 
> generated code is correct. That is, in this particular case, the 
> looping construct should check T0IF each time through the loop, which 
> the generated assembly does not seem to do (it seems only to check it 
> on entry to the loop).
>
> So, really what I'm trying to do is get a sense of the limits of the 
> PIC port of SDCC, to know what I can expect to accomplish with it.
>
>
> On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 04:59 AM, Ian Bell wrote:
>
>> This really does illustrate the problems faced by the developers of 
>> compilers
>> for small micros.  This sort of function is so hardware intimate that it
>> really should be coded in assembler even if the rest of the code is 
>> written
>> in a HLL.  It really is asking too much of any compiler to even come 
>> close to
>> your original for this sort of function.
>