Using C to program the 8051 family

On 02 Jan 2004 18:59:19 GMT, CBarn24050 wrote:

> Hi Bob, can you actually justify that remark? Got any actual numbers from real
> applications?

0Xfffe
3.1415926
0xAAAA >> 1

to name a few.

Bob

cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) wrote in
news:20040102134850.26263.00002221@mb-m06.aol.com: 

> Hi, I did once try with the 2500 compiler but it was hopeless, once I
> went back to assembler it all worked out fine.

There's your problem. Keil or Amrai in the last 5 years are wonderful to
use. I use assy. only when instruction level determinancy is required
(rare). 

-- 
- Mark ->
--

On 2 Jan 2004 19:36:50 GMT, Mark A. Odell wrote:

> cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) wrote in
> news:20040102134850.26263.00002221@mb-m06.aol.com: 
> 
>> Hi, I did once try with the 2500 compiler but it was hopeless, once I
>> went back to assembler it all worked out fine.
> 
> There's your problem. Keil or Amrai in the last 5 years are wonderful to
> use. I use assy. only when instruction level determinancy is required
> (rare).

And, since all of the decent compilers support inline assembly ...

Bob Stephens <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1ofrjos732ylo.5rzirx3t1bof$.dlg@40tude.net: 

>>> Hi, I did once try with the 2500 compiler but it was hopeless, once I
>>> went back to assembler it all worked out fine.
>> 
>> There's your problem. Keil or Amrai in the last 5 years are wonderful
>> to use. I use assy. only when instruction level determinancy is
>> required (rare).
> 
> And, since all of the decent compilers support inline assembly ...

Well actually, Keil C51 is a bit unfriendly in this regard do to the fact
that it is difficult to keep the optimizer in the loop when you go off on
your own (into assy). 

-- 
- Mark ->
--

On 2 Jan 2004 20:12:43 GMT, Mark A. Odell wrote:

> Bob Stephens <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:1ofrjos732ylo.5rzirx3t1bof$.dlg@40tude.net: 
> 
>>>> Hi, I did once try with the 2500 compiler but it was hopeless, once I
>>>> went back to assembler it all worked out fine.
>>> 
>>> There's your problem. Keil or Amrai in the last 5 years are wonderful
>>> to use. I use assy. only when instruction level determinancy is
>>> required (rare).
>> 
>> And, since all of the decent compilers support inline assembly ...
> 
> Well actually, Keil C51 is a bit unfriendly in this regard do to the fact
> that it is difficult to keep the optimizer in the loop when you go off on
> your own (into assy).

Uh Oh. I wish you hadn't told me that. I just bought the Keil tool suite.
Can you elaborate a bit on the problem?

Thanks,

Bob

"CBarn24050" <cbarn24050@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040102134850.26263.00002221@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Hi, I did once try with the 2500 compiler but it was hopeless, once I went
back
> to assembler it all worked out fine.

I haven't used the 2500AD C compiler for the 8051, but if it's anything like
their 68hc11 C compiler, it's not worth using.   The difference in generated
code going from the 2500AD 68hc11 compiler to the Introl one was surprising.

Try the Keil compiler, I don't see how you wouldn't like it.   I used it in
a product where an 8051 core was in an ASIC, and I wrote an interpeter in C
for it which controlled the OSD.  Commands were received from an external
MCU.
Here's a bit of info on it:
http://www.genesis-microchip.com/products/gm5020.phtml

Mark

Bob Stephens <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1cjbq8jnevj8v.bviqkjmwrlqo$.dlg@40tude.net: 


>> Well actually, Keil C51 is a bit unfriendly in this regard do to the
>> fact that it is difficult to keep the optimizer in the loop when you go
>> off on your own (into assy).
> 
> Uh Oh. I wish you hadn't told me that. I just bought the Keil tool
> suite. Can you elaborate a bit on the problem?

See this:

http://www.keil.com/support/docs/146.htm

-- 
- Mark ->
--

so thats a no then is it?

Well Mark when I got it it was supposed to be state of the art I imagine in
another 5 years you'll be saying the same thing about the current Kiel package.
For the sort of things I do I can't see me going back to the 8051.

Bob Stephens wrote:
> On 02 Jan 2004 18:59:19 GMT, CBarn24050 wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi Bob, can you actually justify that remark? Got any actual numbers from real
>>applications?
> 
> 
> 0Xfffe
> 3.1415926
> 0xAAAA >> 1
> 
> to name a few.
> 
> Bob

:) ROTFL