Hi, On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:02:32 +0530, David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Royce Pereira wrote: >> >> So I have to write more 'C' code :) to get the same stuff done, in >> the 'new & smarter' compiler! Interesting..... >> >> Doesn't seem right, some how. >> >> Regards, --Royce. > > It might not seem right, but that's the way it is. The compiler only > has to generate code that has the same effect as the source you've > written, and a simple "ret" has that effect.
Why then was the empty 'ret' function retained? I would think such a case would be the prime candidate for optimisation. The compiler should eliminate such a funtion, as well as all calls to that function. That would really make a difference in size/speed of the code. (Instead, the compiler destroys a perfectly good delay loop I've used for the last 2 years -yes, I'm still sore) > There is no way in C to > express the idea of a time delay - the language has no concept of time. > Thus you have to go out of your way to tell the compiler to be > particularly stupid if you want this sort of code to work. There are > other ways to get a delay, such as the library routines or hardware > timers, or by including something like an "asm volatile ("nop")" in the > loop, but using a volatile loop counter is an easy way to get an > approximate delay loop. > Of course, there's no disputing that. But the delay loop is just an example, of how simple ,intuitive code can throw the compiler into a tizzy. I've used SDCC(for mcs51) where the compiler 'recognises' code patterns, and says "Oh, I know what this is - it's a delay loop! - Let it pass."(for example). I've always maintained - good software is one that does what you *want* it to do, *not* what you tell it to do. ;) Regards, --Royce. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCCemail@example.com http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list