AVR-Chat

I think it has pointers to pointers now.
But I submit that some of the more esoteric parts of C and all of C++ are
inappropriate for humble embedded processors. I try to write code that is
blatantly obvious to any reader a year or two from now. 

Maybe a big fat mega128 with external RAM, but at what point are you using
an AVR when you should be on an ARM?
For me, ease of use and the tiny memory model were important. I crammed an
amazing amount of functionality into a 2313 chip with CV. Not even close to
fitting when I tried with GCC.


-----Original Message-----
From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Russell Shaw
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:50 PM
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Differences between C compilers

stevech wrote:
> Compiler-goodness debates!
> 
> My experiences:
> GCC - free. IDEs are from other cottage industry or freeware types. Hard
to
> use. Does NOT support tiny memory model for small AVR chips. Support is
> limited to forum on AvrFreaks and often you get an answer from an arrogant
> compiler guru who hates corresponding with the little people. But it's
free.
> Students love it. I'd never use it for a professional endeavor where there
> are contractual issues of project completion and acceptance/support long
> term. But it's free. I've used it a lot. 
> 
> Codevision (CV). US$150 or so as I recall. Free demo.  Code density for my
> projects was great. Supports tiny memory model for 2313 and the others
with
> 256 bytes of memory (8 bit RAM pointers) and this has a big benefit in
code
> size. Great support.
> 
> I've not used any of the others. 

The last time i used CV couple of years ago, it couldn't do functions
stored as pointers in structs, or even cope with enums and structs
declared inside functions. Has it been fixed yet?



 
Yahoo! Groups Links