| ??? 05/03/08 14:30 Read: times |
#154342 - if you are not , why are you even here Responding to: ???'s previous message |
In the latter case, you wouldn't be concerned by optimality of the result.
if you are not , why are you even here? Jan, I know you are 'concerned', so the title is by no means directed at you. treat the '51 C as a comfortable macroassembler, rather than a high level language I would not by any means agree with that. The fact that C is a high level language does not relieve a person from being a programmer rather than a coder. This, of course is far more important for small micros that for a 2GHz PC, but even in that case you see results of exteremly inefficient code. That you write efficient C does not mean that you do not use a high level language, the replacement of my 'sample' line is as much C as the 'sample line' is. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| "Real C" vs '51 C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there is nothing wrong except... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if you are not , why are you even here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| *(buffer+8+index)? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| none of the above | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OK then how? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| like this | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| but it's basically the same... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| YCMV | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| assumptions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re: assumptions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I took a \'known\' example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler-independent efficient C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a clarification and an example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two kinds of "efficiency" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler smarter than coder | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Getting the least out of your compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Real C is inherently reentrant | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
which, even when possible, often is ill advised | 01/01/70 00:00 |