| ??? 03/21/05 07:17 Read: times |
#90083 - why not? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Which brings me to my main annoyance about discussion of compilers |I know its off topic a bit but when someone tells you that sdcc is not a serious compiler you should go and look for yourself youll be amazed and I don't see why I should be the one to keep defending it.And before anyone maons about some apparent lack of documentation the documentaion is only available as a pdf file a doc file or as html so you have to actualy read it it doesnt get transfered into your brain as a Vulcan mind meld. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| initializing SP to 7FH | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| To Oleg & Russell | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| To Mehdi | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| To Mehdi | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why not | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| for example, please | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oleg, why I do similar | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| here they are | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| well well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| well, well - done | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| tight SRAM - use C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
- or assembler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Stack pointer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| external stack | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why not? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re:initializing SP to 7FH | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| very old assemblers only | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Let the assembler do the work! | 01/01/70 00:00 |