Le lundi 16 novembre 2009, Gordon Henderson a écrit : > It's doing a mighty fine job on my project.
In mine too... In the earlier setps of my project I had first started converting some fast interrupt code into asm, expecting more compact and performing code, but I soon realized that there was little optimization I could bring to what the compiler had done except from removing a few useless BANKSELs - or maybe I'm not good enough at assembler, so I had mostly stuck to what the compiler had cooked for me. Noticing I was gaining so little as that was such a hassle and maintenance annoyance, I reverted back to "all C code" and it's working fine. However I would be curious ton compare the code size that sdcc generates for a PIC18 and its performance with what I could get from another compiler, but unfortunately a few "PIC compilers comparisons" I could find here and there didn't even mention sdcc :-/ I could try compiling my code with picc (which I had considered when falling upon sdcc PIC16 port bugs), but I understood from the doc that it would take quite a lot of code adaptation, and furthermore the "free" version of this commercial product is supposed to be "non-optimizing", which seemingly makes the biggest difference between the free non-commercial version and the expensive optimizing version... Anyway if anybody has seen or made by himself some PIC18 performance comparison between sdcc and other compilers, I would be interested in seeing them. -- Michel Bouissou (OpenPGP ID 0xEB04D09C) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
