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

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
08/12/07 23:04
Read: times


 		 #143131 - Compilers, but Keil C51 8.09 for the stated 28~
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Russ Cooper said:
For the record, what compiler did you use for this test?

I am currently involved in some compiler beta tests, so for bug searching and my own architecture-comparative purposes, I had tested with HI-TECH's PICC (9.50, 9.60), PICC-Lite 9.60, PICC Pro 9.60, PICC-18 9.50PL3, PICC-18 Pro 9.61, dsPICC 9.60, HI-TECH for 8051 9.01, HI-TECH for MSP430 9.01, Keil C51 7.03, and finally with the stated 28-cycle result Keil C51 8.09.

Of the 8051 compilers Keil 8.09 was best, then Keil 7.03, and HI-TECH 9.01 within a cycle or two of that.

List of 32 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
CRC16 CCITT - What a challenge!            01/01/70 00:00      
   Have you seen this?            01/01/70 00:00      
      Of course!            01/01/70 00:00      
         Balance            01/01/70 00:00      
            I know, Russ,            01/01/70 00:00      
         Code? What code?            01/01/70 00:00      
            in the code library - look to the left column            01/01/70 00:00      
               Thanks! I missed that note in the first post.            01/01/70 00:00      
   I need a hint            01/01/70 00:00      
      write down the bits            01/01/70 00:00      
         Thanks for the hint            01/01/70 00:00      
            Your observations plus a comparison in C            01/01/70 00:00      
               The rest of the story ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Compilers, but Keil C51 8.09 for the stated 28~            01/01/70 00:00      
                  and this processes only a nibble, isn't it...            01/01/70 00:00      
                     No, it process the entire byte.            01/01/70 00:00      
                        now it\'s my pencil time...            01/01/70 00:00      
                           FYFI            01/01/70 00:00      
                              Clarification re: 8-bit optimized term            01/01/70 00:00      
                              on optimisation            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 Jan's optimization            01/01/70 00:00      
                                    Re: on optimization            01/01/70 00:00      
                                       Can you please be more specific?            01/01/70 00:00      
                                          More specifically ...            01/01/70 00:00      
            and what            01/01/70 00:00      
               More on checksums            01/01/70 00:00      
   No reason to hide the excreted code            01/01/70 00:00      
      Excreted code needs context like any other code            01/01/70 00:00      
   One More Comment            01/01/70 00:00      
      ... and a marginal remark ...            01/01/70 00:00      
         Init all ones frequently specified            01/01/70 00:00      
   18 cycles            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List