On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:06:42 +0200 Philipp Klaus Krause <p...@spth.de> wrote:
> Dear SDCC users, > > you have chosen SDCC over non-free alternatives. I'm a bit interested in > knowing the reasons. And also in knowing in which areas you think SDCC > is lacking compared to non-free alternatives. Also: do you use non-free > compilers for some of your projects for architectures supported by SDCC? > Knowing which architectures these (dis)advantages apply to would also be > helpful. I use it because I don't want to be dependent upon compilers I can't hack fix, or modify. Good bits - Code generation is best I've seen for Z80 (yes it's bad for some stuff but it's still beating the rest by a lot) - Actually maintained - Being open I could hack my own fork to support RAM based binaries well and also transparent code banking - Code quality is reasonable and it's possible to make changes and work on it a bit. Bad bits - Stability. Each release seems to fix 5 things and break 4 different ones which makes it harder to manage - Lack of proper support for RAM based binaries on Z80 - Doesn't follow any C compiler conventions about object file naming, not filling the current directory with trash files I don't want etc - Compile time peformance (although this has improved) - Doesn't know how to build relocatable binaries (but there are patches and way to deal with this plus forks like Z88DK) Some people will know I plan to drop SDCC for Fuzix eventually but to be clear that is solely because I intend to have a self-hosting compiler not because I dislike SDCC. _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
