Re: what uC do you prefer?



Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
feebo wrote:

The TI 16-bitter, the MSP430, is pretty nice too, and very fast. Like
the 68332, it has a register-rich, symmetric, very PDP-11 looking
architecture.

PDP... <whipes a tear from her eye>

Take a look at the '430 instruction set; you'll get downright
nostalgic.

Why would any intelligent person fret over an instruction set ?

Because even if you don't code in assembly it makes a difference in
code space requirements, execution time, memory bandwidth, .... and
more.

And why fret over those either ? If you're so close to the bone that it's an
issue, you're probably using the wrong device in the first place.

Well, there is that. But I cannot recall a single instance (of any
application significance, I mean) where I wasn't mixing assembly with
C or just writing in assembly. There are a number of application
requirements that simply cannot possibly be met by C alone. It simply
doesn't have the semantics for the application space I'm usually
working in.

Besides, the PL/M compiler I use seems to produce compact fast code anyway.

I wrote my own PL/M compiler, many years back. I wonder if I still
have it around here, somewhere. Now I'm going to have to go look. ;)

That sounds interesting !

Graham

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what uC do you prefer?
    ... <whipes a tear from her eye> ... Why would any intelligent person fret over an instruction set? ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: what uC do you prefer?
    ... <whipes a tear from her eye> ... Why would any intelligent person fret over an instruction set? ... code space requirements, execution time, memory bandwidth, ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: what uC do you prefer?
    ... <whipes a tear from her eye> ... Why would any intelligent person fret over an instruction set? ... code space requirements, execution time, memory bandwidth, ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)