Re: 8051 Development Board / 89C51 / MCS51 / 8052

In article <dam2gs$rk1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Brian Clark <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
>The compiler being used is the SDCC open-source one. I'm making no
>attempt to say its perfect for every job, its just something I've used
>for some time and find useful.

Note to self: Go find this puppy.


>Regarding programming in assembly, I totally agree - its only when
>you're at the nuts and bolt level that you can really understand what
>the processor is doing. I always feel that things like C are a trade off
>between (speed of development and ease) vs (execution speed, code
>compactness and optimisation) on the other.

Actually, I may not even agree that C saves time in development. In order
to use C, you need to go with a much higher performance micro with more
RAM and ROM. This often blows you out of a single chip solution into a
multichip one. The more stuff in a design, the longer it generally takes.

In both C and Assembly, I usually spend more time designing the software
than actually coding it up.


>Thanks for the info on Cygnal being 50MIPs, that is pretty nippy I must
>say. I've used Dallas Maxim chips that have a single cycle instruction
>architecture - its good to know they have completition!

I've been having trouble getting the 12 bit ADC to perform but I'm working
on another part of my project right now. Fairly soon, I'll have to come
back to that problem.
--
--
kensmith@xxxxxxxxx forging knowledge

.

Quantcast