gnupic: SDCC status
Subject:
Re: SDCC status
From:
Erasmo Brenes ####@####.####
Date:
17 Oct 2001 19:09:04 -0000
Message-Id: <3BCDD96A.B82F0BBD@mint-tech.com>
Scott Dattalo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Erasmo Brenes wrote:
>
> > I have ported/fixed the small-c compiler that was placed on the
> > gnupic website (by John Fatava?). The version I have working generates
> ...
>
> I'm really interested to see how you did this. When I looked at it a year
> or so ago I almost had to take anti-nausea medication. I reckon though if
> you don't care about speed or processor utilization, then small-c is just
> fine!
>
> Scott
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
Well, the first time I looked at the code, I got the same reaction.
As a matter of fact, I stopped for a while developing it because it is
such a nightmare to follow how the code actually works and there is
little documentation. But on the other hand, there wasn't anything
else out there (for free) and the development of the sdcc was/is still
in progress. Also, I needed to work with 16F87x and there wasn't
anything there for them.
As you point out, it doesn't have any real optimization code in it. I
have improved the code generation module to detect simple constructs,
such as incf, etc. as opposed to the original code. Nevertheless, there
are still "dumb" code generation outputs, such as c=0; being translated
as movlw #0, movwf c_, instead of clrf c_. But, for small to medium
projects, these dumb translations can be filtered out after to speed up
and shrink the code.
Should I tar the sources and send them to you?
Erasmo
