Post by thread:jal release 0.3

I have put the new version of the JAL compiler at http://www.xs4all.nl/~wf/wouter/pic/jal Compared to the previous version: - Better and more libraries. - Better code generation. - Some simple optimizations. - The compiler is faster and uses less stack and heap. - The assembler output is acceptable to mpasm2. - The assembler output contains the command line, compilation statistics and shows the variable allocation. - Reasonable documentation (in html). I have some jal-related questions to the PIC-list community: 1. How important (for PIC programming) is language/compiler support for 2,3,4 byte or even larger integers? What is more important, signed integers or unsigned? What would be a better implementation strategy (for 2,3,4 etc byte integers): inline code (fast, but can get bulky) or library calls (slower, but can be much smaller). 2. Can someone come up with a nice informal benchmark compiled with a good C compiler which I can use as "level to be reached" for my compiler (especially in terms of code compactness). For example: a clock / temperature display, with an lm75 for temperature and a hd44780 for the LCD? regards, Wouter.

On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, wouter van ooijen / floortje hanneman wrote: > I have put the new version of the JAL compiler at > http://www.xs4all.nl/~wf/wouter/pic/jal > > Compared to the previous version: > - Better and more libraries. > - Better code generation. > - Some simple optimizations. > - The compiler is faster and uses less stack and heap. > - The assembler output is acceptable to mpasm2. > - The assembler output contains the command line, compilation statistics > and shows the variable allocation. > - Reasonable documentation (in html). > > I have some jal-related questions to the PIC-list community: > > 1. > How important (for PIC programming) > is language/compiler support for 2,3,4 byte or even larger integers? I'd say 2 byte integers are important. However, there are also a lot of apps where 4 byte integers are also useful. > What is more important, signed integers or unsigned? Hard to say. I guess (from practice) unsigned are slightly more important. > What would be a better implementation strategy (for 2,3,4 etc byte > integers): > inline code (fast, but can get bulky) or library calls (slower, but > can be much smaller). Due to the limited amount of the precious ROM, I'd prefer call's. > > 2. > Can someone come up with a nice informal benchmark compiled > with a good C compiler which I can use as "level to be reached" > for my compiler (especially in terms of code compactness). > For example: a clock / temperature display, with an lm75 > for temperature and a hd44780 for the LCD? I can not promise but maybe I'll check it. > > regards, > Wouter. > >