Post by thread:"overhead" of melab's pbasic pro

Opdahl, Patrick G wrote: > > hi all, > > one concern I have before buying melab's picbasic pro is the amount of > "overhead" in the pic's memory that used by the compiler... to clarify, my > question is this- how optimized is the compiler? will the compiled basic > code take up 10% or more PIC memory compared to compiled assembler code? loop: goto loop: 'uses 4 words (words is melabs term for program bytes) ---------------------------- high 1 low 1 'uses 40 words ---------------------------- high 1 low 1 high 1 low 1 high 1 low 1 'uses 48 words (2 words for each additional high or low) ------------------------------ lcdout "A" 'uses 169 words (each addition letter/number uses 2 words) ------------------------------ b1 var byte '2 words -------------------------------- b1 var byte for b1=1 to 250 next '36 words ---------------------------------- b1 var byte rctime 1,1,b1 '49 words ----------------------------------- b1 var byte serout 1,1,[1] '132 words ------------------------------------ b1 var byte serin 1,1,b1 '145 words ----------------------------------- b1 var byte pause b1 '38 words ----------------------------------- 24 bytes are used internally by Pro. It may allocate additional temps to sort out arrays or complex expressions. > is there a speed performance loss? of course there is, the more instructions the slower it is but it is still very fast > I'd appreciate any input- even from melab And melabs replied PBPro is the best thing since sliced bread. In fact it's so good that if God had used PBPro instead of assembler He would have only taken 6 mins, not 6 days, giving Him 6 days, 23 hours and 54 mins to rest ! PS: be warned their documentation and tec support stinks -- Peter Cousens email: spam_OUTcousensTakeThisOuTher.forthnet.gr phone: + 3081 380534 snailmail: Folia, Agia Fotini, Karteros, Heraklion Crete, Greece. Is it true that they have, on the new version of windows managed to increase the MTBF from 95 to 98 minutes ? (That's why they called it 95)

Hi, the overhead of the native Pic Basic Pro code is far more than 10%, but... ... it depends. The complexity of the PicBasic Pro code is also more, so a direct comparison IMHO is not possible. For me perhaps the most important advantage of the PicBasic Pro that it gives a good support to embed assembly code so the critical elements can be replaced by assembler. BTW I use it extensively and I like it. Imre On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Opdahl, Patrick G wrote: {Quote hidden}> hi all, > > one concern I have before buying melab's picbasic pro is the amount of > "overhead" in the pic's memory that used by the compiler... to clarify, my > question is this- how optimized is the compiler? will the compiled basic > code take up 10% or more PIC memory compared to compiled assembler code? is > there a speed performance loss? > > I'd appreciate any input- even from melab > > TIA > Pat > >