Lpc2000

Ghazan Haider wrote:

>I started using the lpc2000 chips as a replacement for
>my pic and avr set. Even ARM is aiming at the 8-bit
>market with the arm7 core (and with the lpc2101,
>they're actually cheaper than many 8-bitters).
>
>I'd prefer to start with assembly code (thumb likely)
>for small and highly predictable code. For more
>complex stuff I'd use chips with bigger ram/flash and
>RTOSes, which frequently demand the use of C as in
>Keil compiler C or GCC. If a free arm assembler with
>the traditional arm syntax is available, I'd be one of
>the users. I however admit I havent taken a closer
>look at the gcc's arm assembler yet.
>
>  
>
Now you have hit upon one of the reasons I did not use PIC as a choice 
in new hardware designs.  The early PICs did not have an interrupt 
structure and you had to carefully balance the time taken between 
sections of the program so that you could arrive back in time to do 
something like pull the next char out of the UART.

I've coded in Assembler for 25+ years now, lots and lots of assembler + 
C.  On the 8051, 6502, Z80, 8070, 8042, 80C188, ..., assembler  was 
choice of languages for deterministic programming.   Hand coded 
assembler could be written, "in the day", to be tighter code than what 
the compilers of 10 years ago were producing. When I look at the output 
of a modern C compiler, such as GNU gcc, the optimizer does such good 
job producing tight code, that I won't bother with assembler.

Have  you taken a critical look at a C language program output lately?  
Try the -O2 option, the code optimization is staggering, especially with 
the ARM Instruction Set!!

However, you are certainly free to make your own decision.   BTW, 
assembler ports real easily to C, and vise-versa.  Many call C 
"glorified assembler".

Regards,

TomW

-- 
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------------------------------------------