| ??? 12/14/04 13:31 Read: times |
#83060 - 8051 efficiency Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Sure the 8051 is not best suited for 'c' code - it has some interesting architectural hurdles. But the compiler writers address this well and it requires some knowlege on the part of the programmers to help the compiler. The PIC is even worse! The 8051 was never meant to be a general purpose processor - it is exceptional at control stuff. So there is a compromise. As for the speed issue - who cares how many instructions it takes to complete a task - as long as the task is completed in the time required. The trick is to know what is best done in 'c' and what should be done is asm. Have you ever looked at the code generated by a 'c' compiler on a PC? It's not necessarily the most efficient and the x86 was never known for it's efficiency in supporting 'c' - but do we care? Hell no! We've got 3GHz+ P4's. The Windows o/s is written in 'c' and even worse 'c++', how about Linux? It's written in 'c'. If 'c' is a 'bad thing' on a 8051, well I've been paid a lot of money doing the wrong thing all these years and my customers are happy - I've obviously ripped them off!!! |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| asm vs C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| HLL | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| asm vs C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C and other HLLs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| modern - productive | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lunch | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Speed writing vs speed running. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Belt or suspenders? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Learn C Then... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| beware | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This advice is great | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I love C !!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Easy migration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 3rd party | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Having recently started converting... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Learning C for tte 8051 and 8-bit uC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Obviously there is a reason... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| as to reasons | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Obviously there is a reason... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 8051 vs C :) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 8051 efficiency | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a 51 for handling large amount of data | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 8051 vs C - answer is wrong | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| addendum to post Andys above | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| asm.vs.C forever | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| click, click, click | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Eh?? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 8051 vs C - answer is wrong | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Don't believe all you hear! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the C myth | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| myth | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Then Don't Do that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Exactly! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why only? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Right tool for the Job | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| asm VS C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Which C? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Handly, But | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Both i think | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Neither! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler on a floppy? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why do people use C? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Code Complete | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Ironic | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re: asm VS C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re:asm vs C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| derivatives of same | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| portability | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: portability | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| (non-)portability | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What do you want? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| HLL | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Personal dislike... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A comment to ASM versus C | 01/01/70 00:00 |