In article <xJGuRTDh+M+D...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, c...@phaedsys.org 
says...
> In article <M...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S.
> Berkowitz <f...@comcast.net> writes
> >In article <4...@individual.net>, p...@scazon.com says...
> >> Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
> >> 
> >> > So the only valid conclusion is that these benchmarks show that GCC is  
> >> > quite efficient in string handling.  Whereas the IAR-benchmarks test  
> >> > real-world embbedded applications.
> >> > <http://www.iar.se/p43943/p43943_eng.php>;
> >> 
> >> They only show code size... and (see other posts) you can't be sure if 
> >> they've optimised appropriately.
> >
> >
> >
> >..and I'll take this opportunity to point out that GCC supports C++, 
> >while IAR supports only the Embedded C++ subset, and Keil doesn't 
> >support it at all (at present).
> >
> >--Gene
> >
> 
> 
> Why do you think EC++ was developed in the first place? (and it wasn't
> by IAR) 

> EC++ is used on systems where full C++ compilers are available
> because EC++ is a good idea for embedded systems. There are several
> compilers which have a C++/EC++ switch. 
> 
> IAR could implement full C++ on several of their targets if they wanted
> to and it was a good idea.

But they haven't, so therefore it isn't a good idea, or they have other 
things to do? 
> 
> The fact that GCC does not support EC++ is not a plus point for GCC it
> is a negative point. 

There is nothing in GCC that prevents one from NOT using the C++ 
features omitted from EC++, so this is a rather specious claim...

EC++ is not an ISO standard, it was a stopgap measure by compiler 
writers who could not wait for the C++ standard to stabilize.

--Gene

 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:05:53 +0000 in comp.arch.embedded, Chris Hills
<c...@phaedsys.org> wrote:

>In article <M...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S.
>Berkowitz <f...@comcast.net> writes
[...]
>>
>>..and I'll take this opportunity to point out that GCC supports C++, 
>>while IAR supports only the Embedded C++ subset, and Keil doesn't 
>>support it at all (at present).
>>
>>--Gene
>>
>
>
>Why do you think EC++ was developed in the first place? (and it wasn't

The rationale makes it obvious that EC++ was developed because a bunch
of Japanese chip companies thought embedded programmers were too
stupid to be able to use the parts of the C++ language they themselves
did not understand fully.

Evidence?  http://www.caravan.net/ec2plus/rationale.html, section 2.1,
quote:

   "Thus, a 'mutable' specifier might bewilder the average embedded
    systems programmer."


[...]
>
>The fact that GCC does not support EC++ is not a plus point for GCC it
>is a negative point. 

Hooey.  GCC supports EC++, it just doesn't enforce it.

EC++ is nothing more than a simple subset of standard C++.  Instead of
adding useful extensions (like memory space control or standardized
hardware access), the "committee" decided simply to limit the power of
the existing language to prevent possible misuse.  Not all the steps
they took were bad (C++ was a much better language before multiple
inheritence), but there's nothing special about it either.

Other than the buzzword "embedded."

Regards,
                                        -=Dave

-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.