Searching \ for ' ASM vs C or PBP' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/language/index.htm?key=asm
Search entire site for: 'ASM vs C or PBP'.

No exact or substring matches. trying for part
PICList Thread
'[PICLIST] ASM vs C or PBP'
2001\03\01@220336 by Richard Clemens

flavicon
face
I have used PBP on some projects but find ASM rather easy and MUCH more
efficient use of memory space.  Has anyone compaired the space required for
a given task when using some of the C compilers?

Rich

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\03\01@224700 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Richard Clemens wrote:

> I have used PBP on some projects but find ASM rather easy and MUCH more
> efficient use of memory space.  Has anyone compaired the space required for
> a given task when using some of the C compilers?

I have not coded the exact same task in ASM and C to compare side by side,
but I suspect that overall it's probably within a few percent assuming
enough code for a valid comparison.  For me anyway.  Big difference is in
development time and maintainability (again, for me).  Now, you get
someone like Bob, or Scott, or Nikolai writing the ASM code and all bets
are off - but I can't write ASM code like they do even on my best days.

Dale
---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
               -- Isaac Asimov

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\03\02@010718 by Peter Anderson

flavicon
face
I have used all three.

PBP requires you keep track of all variables and uses macros which result in .ASM files that are very difficult to debug.

Not, to spark a big flame war, but I use the $99 CCS PCM compiler, but avoid all of the built in functions and have been pleased.  I just don't think I can clearly write the code in .ASM and do as well as the C compiler.  There are exceptions and it pays to know assembly for those situations.

I would guess my development time is 10 percent of what it would be with assembly.

I really resisted C on the 12C508 as it just seemed as if the chip was too too small.  But, again, using CCS PCB, I was pleasantly surprised.

Peter H. Anderson, http://www.phanderson.com, pha(at)phanderson.com

Sign up for Free-for-Life E-mail at http://www.Africana.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu


2001\03\02@072811 by Richard Clemens

flavicon
face
> but I suspect that overall it's probably within a few percent assuming

Well it many percent for PBP ... so what is the best C --> PIC compiler...
I define best as the one that produces the tightest best code with relative
ease without regard to price.

--
Richard Clemens
.....clemensKILLspamspam.....wvwc.edu



{Original Message removed}

2001\03\02@101323 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Richard Clemens wrote:

> > but I suspect that overall it's probably within a few percent assuming
>
> Well it many percent for PBP ... so what is the best C --> PIC compiler...
> I define best as the one that produces the tightest best code with relative
> ease without regard to price.

Andrew Warren, John Payson, Dmitry, Nik, Bob, myself, and many others placed
into a room (preferably in some place like Hawaii - since Price is no object),
will produce the absolute best C to pic assembly. It would be slow and
expensive, however.

On a more practical level, there is Byte Craft and HiTech. Everything else just
doesn't compare (including my work on SDCC).

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu


2001\03\02@134322 by Barry Gershenfeld

picon face
This just occurred to me so I'll throw it in since I haven't
seen it suggested.

First of all I usually look at what the compiler (mine's CCS)
generates for a line of C and I'm usually impressed that it's
pretty straightforward (that means I was able to understand
it :)  So I'll go along with the "few percent bigger"
conjecture.

But my C code is always larger.  Why?  Because coding in
assembler is so intricate that I often resist adding
a feature here and there or a "superfluous" double-check
on a value.  In C such lines are easy to add and I know
I won't be hand stepping past the BTFSS to see if I got
it the wrong way again...

Barry

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu


2001\03\04@221942 by shane

flavicon
face
Hi,

Theres a review of C compilers - http://www.workingtechnologies.com/htpic/Hi-Tech_C_review.htm

Cheers,
Shane.

> {Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2001 , 2002 only
- Today
- New search...