Coverting Asm to C: Metrics?

"Hans-Bernhard Broeker" <broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote in message 
news:4k3o9aFa64eaU1@news.dfncis.de...
>
> Hold it a moment, please.  Just so we're 101% perfectly clear about
> this: you've outgrown a 512 KiB super-8051 system writing all the code
> in *assembler*?  I'll hand it to you, you must have had a team of
> brave people work on such monster.  I've maintained a 96 KiB
> code-size, Super-8051 project done entirely in assembly, and
> considered that to be sitting on the fence, leaning dangerous towards
> "mission impossible" territory.
>
You're right.  And he is a team of brave people (albeit a small one).  You 
can see how C *might* just improve maintainability.

> I'd be careful with that expected speedup.  Just ask yourself: if it
> were realistic to render that IP core Dallas bought for 100 MHz clock
> frequency, what kept Dalls from doing that in their chips (keeping in
> mind they're going ASIC, so they should be faster, not slower than an
> FPGA)?  Would DalSemi really shoot their own foot just like that?
>
The speedup is mainly through demuxing the external busses, actually only 
running 40MHz.

>
> There is, theoretically at least, a third option, albeit it a
> *thoroughly* nasty one: an 8051 machine code interpreter, running on
> whatever CPU you can find that is fast enough to pull off that stunt.
>
Yepp, did the numbers on this one, too.  Have done it before when a 
processor disappeared under us some 20+ years ago.

Cheers,
Alf 

Alf Katz wrote:

> "Hans-Bernhard Broeker" <broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote in message 
> news:4k3o9aFa64eaU1@news.dfncis.de...
> 
>>Hold it a moment, please.  Just so we're 101% perfectly clear about
>>this: you've outgrown a 512 KiB super-8051 system writing all the code
>>in *assembler*?  I'll hand it to you, you must have had a team of
>>brave people work on such monster.  I've maintained a 96 KiB
>>code-size, Super-8051 project done entirely in assembly, and
>>considered that to be sitting on the fence, leaning dangerous towards
>>"mission impossible" territory.
>>
> 
> You're right.  And he is a team of brave people (albeit a small one).  You 
> can see how C *might* just improve maintainability.

  is this 512KB of CODE ? - The only time I've seen such large 8051 
footprints, have been where extensive menus, and multi-languages, were 
included.
  That stuff can go into cheap serial data-flash these days; code memory 
is too expensive for that.
  How much RAM does this system need, storing what sized variables ?

-jg

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:44dcf917$1@clear.net.nz...
> For another data point, look at these new 'monster 80C51' devices :
> http://www.asix.com.tw/products.php?op=pItemdetail&PItemID=91;72;103
>
> These have the Farcall C390 core, and claim 100Mips, with 512K Flash
> Prices are apparently sub $6

Farcall, LOL.  I love it!  If I can't get it into this project, I'll have to 
start another just to use it.
processor.

>
> It depends on the project, but another viable soultion would be to split 
> into two controllers. The stable low level stuff, stays in 80C51(s), and 
> the new stuff goes into some 32 bit core.
>  uC these days are so cheap, they cost less than the packing, or cables, 
> in many projects.
>

Yepp, that's another column in my KT matrix.

Cheers,
Alf