| ??? 12/15/04 13:26 Read: times |
#83145 - the C myth Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Many I know, suffer from the myth that it is the compilers job to make any mess into tight code. Writing C without any concern for the implementattion on the processor will invariably result in bloated code.
There are above comments about the "inefficiency" of the dptr and there is no such thing. C code can be written in a "dptr friendly" way or "inefficient" i.e. with no regard for the resulting machine code. The above example of pointer to pointer to pointer will not lead to efficient code on any processor I know, but, according to a person I laid off it is "REAL C" and considering the resulting machine code is not "REAL C". In the PC world where you have multimegabytes executed at multimegahertz you can get by with such sloppiness, but insisting that such is applicable in the small embedded workd is pure crap. The point that is missed is that for "apparent efficiency" you have to spend hardware (PC) or software (small embedded). Stepping off the soapbox, Erik |
| 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 |