| ??? 05/05/08 20:33 Read: times |
#154452 - a clarification and an example Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik said:
so, maybe we should forget about the compilers involvement and just continue with "compiler independent efficient C" But what does that mean? Is there any such thing? Do you really mean "compiler dependent efficient C"? no, just "efficient C". if you start here http://www.8052.com/forumchat/read.phtml?id=154434 with my example and continue with your response, you have an example. 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 |