Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
05/14/10 22:16
Read: times


 		 #175921 - They frequently claim it in the negative
Responding to: ???'s previous message
David Prentice said:
I do not think that anyone would ever claim that SDCC can compete with the commercial C compilers.

I think they quite frequently do claim it; especially in the negative - as in, "I see No reason to pay for a commercial compiler when I can get SDCC for free"

List of 23 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
SDCC assembler Questions            01/01/70 00:00      
   :: or .globl            01/01/70 00:00      
   do you mean .globl directive?l            01/01/70 00:00      
   so far, so good now how specify xdata            01/01/70 00:00      
      what are you trying to do            01/01/70 00:00      
   is there a current SDCC documentation?            01/01/70 00:00      
      at least UserGuide from Googel :-)            01/01/70 00:00      
         unsigned char _far _at(0x700) buf[0x100]            01/01/70 00:00      
         without a word about the assembler            01/01/70 00:00      
      documentation            01/01/70 00:00      
         sample in pseudocode            01/01/70 00:00      
            okay and how do you want to use it?            01/01/70 00:00      
               a simple example            01/01/70 00:00      
                  thanks for the examples and ...            01/01/70 00:00      
      current SDCC documentation            01/01/70 00:00      
         evidently XDATA assembler is not 'current'            01/01/70 00:00      
            my installation has asxxhtm.html in doc/as            01/01/70 00:00      
               well, you get what you pay for and            01/01/70 00:00      
                  SDCC is free after all            01/01/70 00:00      
                     They frequently claim it in the negative            01/01/70 00:00      
                     from my first post "            01/01/70 00:00      
                        asxxxx tools            01/01/70 00:00      
                           as it turned out ...            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List