gnupic: SDCC
Subject:
Re: SDCC
From:
Ralf Forsberg ####@####.####
Date:
14 Nov 2001 06:23:14 -0000
Message-Id: <20011114072253.A19924@home.se>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:27:05PM +1100, matt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:26, Ralf Forsberg wrote:
> > I tried my "alfa.c" on the pic compilers I could find, and then
> > measured execution time using gpsim. All compilers are demo versions
> > downloaded from the web. It may be that the regular versions are better,
> > but that seems strange.
> >
> > It may not say much, alfa.c perhaps is not the most 'average' program.
> >
> > accumulated cycles:
> > sdcc picc picc -O -Zg9 CCSC sdcc uchar mpc
> > init 2 0x145 0x143 ? 9
> > t1 0xc7 0x24a 0x214 0x76 0x5e ?
> > t2 0x708 0xbae 0x96b 0x46c 0x36c 0x9b3
> > t3 0x26303 0x3d381 0x2e3cd 0x1f7f6 0x14585 0x3fbbe
> >
>
> Ok, here's my thoughts. I would be VERY VERY VERY surprised if sdcc could
> beat all those compilers this well with Scott still developing it.
>
> here's my thoughts. Check all the hex. files to see if they work.. not if
> they simply execute to the end.
I checked that it works, in the sense that the test functions calculated
the magic values.
>
> Specifically Ralf could supply results of the execution to prove that indeed
> singed math was used (big over head here)
I have put the sdcc generated .asm file at http://rfg.myip.org/sdcc/test
I'll try unsigned math too, tomorrow.
>and even look to
> see if in-line functions were ever employed.
IIRC ccsc was the only one using inline functions.
No one would be happier than scott if you find bugs in the code. As I said
in my first mail, it's not yet a fair comparasion since many things don't
work yet.
/ Ralf
