On 12/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been getting so much junk mail that I'm resorting to > a draconian mechanism to avoid the spam. In order > to make sure that there's a real person sending mail, I'm > asking you to explicitly enable access. To do that, > resend your message (or send a new message) to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the token: > BfQGT > in the subject of your mail message. After that, you > shouldn't get any bounces from me. Sorry if this is > an inconvenience. > > ---------------- > Original message > ---------------- > Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Wed Dec 7 10:54:40 > EST 2005 > Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 70A3D5B725 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:54:36 -0500 (EST) > X-Original-To: [email protected] > Delivered-To: [email protected] > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id B70025B6FE > for <[email protected]>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:54:09 -0500 (EST) > Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) > by localhost (psuvax1 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP > id 11165-01-82 for <[email protected]>; > Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:54:06 -0500 (EST) > Received: from smtp.vitanuova.com (unknown [213.146.155.10]) > by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id EA78B5B6FC > for <[email protected]>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:54:05 -0500 (EST) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: C H Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:53:19 +0000 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] > Subject: Re: [9fans] const > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="upas-rolofcrqpudavkzmcuqbdfysgg" > X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cse.psu.edu > Cc: > X-BeenThere: [email protected] > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 > Precedence: list > Reply-To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <[email protected]> > List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> > List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/9fans>, > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > List-Archive: <http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans> > List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> > List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > List-Subscribe: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/9fans>, > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --upas-rolofcrqpudavkzmcuqbdfysgg > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >>list of GCC is often borne out there, one has to grant that avr-gcc is > >>a dramatically superior product to any other offering for the target > >>CPU. > > that's funny. before i read it, i was just about to observe that our Atmel > compiler > based on Plan 9's puts tables in program flash without any hints. > const alone wouldn't help anyway because the memory is accessed > using special instructions so the compiler and linker need to do > more analysis. otherwise the compiler does reasonable well given > that the chip is really an 8-bit micro. i think > the loader zl helps zc in some cases, and also monitors stack sizes. > it was important that the FFT and CC1000 > tables go in program memory to save limited RAM, > although that feature was added fairly late. > we needed the atmel compiler for some work on motes. > i looked at gcc for it a bit initially whilst waiting for ours > but started to throw things or throw up; i can't remember which. > --upas-rolofcrqpudavkzmcuqbdfysgg > Content-Type: message/rfc822 > Content-Disposition: inline > > Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by doppio; > Wed Dec 7 15:28:14 GMT 2005 > Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 1B7255B90A > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:28:34 -0500 (EST) > X-Original-To: [email protected] > Delivered-To: [email protected] > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id AC1C05B306 > for <[email protected]>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:27:57 -0500 (EST) > Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) > by localhost (psuvax1 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP > id 11165-01-29 for <[email protected]>; > Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:27:53 -0500 (EST) > Received: from meddle.iba.co.za (meddle.proxima.alt.za [196.30.44.147]) > by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id A6F1063078 > for <[email protected]>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:27:50 -0500 (EST) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [9fans] const > From: Lucio De Re <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: Proxima Research & Development > X-Mailer: Plan 9 ACME/Mail > X-Disclaimer: Everything expressed is an opinion > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:30:42 +0200 > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cse.psu.edu > X-BeenThere: [email protected] > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 > Precedence: list > Reply-To: Lucio De Re <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <[email protected]> > List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> > List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/9fans>, > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > List-Archive: <http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans> > List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> > List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > List-Subscribe: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/9fans>, > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To cap this the last time I did use a 16bit cpu and tried to do this, > > examination of the assembly proved the (name deleted) compiler was too > > dumb to take advantage. > > Now, irrespective of which compiler Steve is referring to... > > In the delusion that I may have to migrate to embedded systems when my > luck with system and network administration runs out, I follow the > traffic on the avr-gcc mailing list. Even though criticism on _this_ > list of GCC is often borne out there, one has to grant that avr-gcc is > a dramatically superior product to any other offering for the target > CPU. > > GCC is a monstrosity, but nothing else addresses all the issues that > it resolves. The cost is extremely high, but in my opinion it is > worth paying. I think GCC is closer to an organism than to a formal > translator and that may well be its strongest suit. > > ++L > --upas-rolofcrqpudavkzmcuqbdfysgg-- >
-- - curiosity sKilled the cat
