Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
05/05/04 06:14
Read: times


 		 #69871 - RE: Learning C for \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'51, t
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Hi Erik

The same file (clock2.c) compiled (posted earlier within these threads) with SDCC and RIDE (Raisonance) yielded the following results.

885 bytes (SDCC) and 632 bytes (RIDE). That probably would be a good efficiency of the two programs.

If 632 bytes = 100% then 885 bytes would = 131%. This to me would mean SDCC is 31% less efficient compared to RIDE.

A more practical way of looking at it is the code would fit inside of 89C1051, 89C2051 and 89C4051. It would also perform within it parameters it was designed for.

This would make it plenty good in my opinion.

Regards,

Charles Bannister



List of 46 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Learning C for '51            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: Learning C for '51            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Learning C for '51            01/01/70 00:00      
         Evaluation version?            01/01/70 00:00      
   STOP!            01/01/70 00:00      
      on the contrary            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: on the contrary            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: Learning C for \'51            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Learning C for \'51            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Evaluation version?!            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: Evaluation version?!            01/01/70 00:00      
            RE: Evaluation version!            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: Learning C for \\\\\\\'51            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Learning C for \\\\\\\'51            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: Learning C for \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\            01/01/70 00:00      
            RE: Learning C for \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\            01/01/70 00:00      
               RE: Learning C for \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\            01/01/70 00:00      
               RE: Learning C for \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\            01/01/70 00:00      
                  RE: Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
                     RE: Keil evaluation            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Wichit Sirichote is to blame?            01/01/70 00:00      
                  RE: SDCC            01/01/70 00:00      
                     RE: SDCC            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: Learning C for '51            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
            RE: Keil            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: Learning C for '51            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Learning C for \'51            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: Learning C for \'51            01/01/70 00:00      
            RE: Learning C for \'51            01/01/70 00:00      
            RE: Learning C for \'51            01/01/70 00:00      
               RE: Learning C for \'51            01/01/70 00:00      
                  RE: Learning C for \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'51, to Charles            01/01/70 00:00      
                     RE: Learning C for \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'51, t            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Optimisation?            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Efficiency            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Does Size Matter?            01/01/70 00:00      
                           Special Interest for Keil by Andy here?            01/01/70 00:00      
                              RE: Special Interest for Keil by Andy here?            01/01/70 00:00      
                              Nope!            01/01/70 00:00      
               RE: Comparisons            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: Learning C for '51            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Learning C for \\\'51            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: Cross-Compiler            01/01/70 00:00      
            RE: Cross-Compiler, Thanks Andy            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List