??? 01/12/10 18:32 Read: times |
#172387 - ! Apple 2 Apple Responding to: ???'s previous message |
My tests were not apples to apples. I compared the types of compressed code I see come out of Keil's C51 and IAR's AVR compiler. There is a lot of difference in the resulting noodle bowl of code produced.
I have compared IAR AVR tools to the results of two other AVR tool chains and the resulting code compression with all optimizations turned on was dramatic! I did at one time download the IAR 8051 tool set in the free eval form to try to compare it to Keil but the project in hand at the time was way too big to compile/link with the eval tools so I gave up. Another factor that steered me away from trying to complete said comparison was the complexity of the code and how much editing it would have required to get to to fully compile. Michael Karas |
Topic | Author | Date |
Code Size Reduction | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Keil guidance | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
if you are not ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Cross-post | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Try Hitex's C51 Primer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
pardon? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I guess ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
my guess | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Erik, your guess is correct | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Your guess can't be correct | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
but it can be the base of the statement | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: The standard C51 program wastes a lot of memory | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
IAR Optimization | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
relative to Keil? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
! Apple 2 Apple | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Apples and Oranges? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
if 'identical' source, then ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
The MSP430 has a bigger instruction set | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
if it was mostly bit manipulation the 8052 may win.![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |