Re[2]: [cc65] Debug info question

Date view Thread view Subject view

From: groepaz (groepaz_at_gmx.net)
Date: 2001-05-23 17:05:35


Hello Mike,

[snip]

MM> I have extensive experience with GCC generating code for the Z8001, and
MM> found that a straightforward small compiler followed up by an assembler
MM> which did peephole optimization consistently did a better job than GCC
MM> for both code size and code speed.

MM> Of course, with the really tiny compilers (not the one I used on the
MM> Z8001) you don't get nice language features like structures and unions,
MM> but I don't write large programs for the small machines, anyway.

you are ofcoz right with small tiny compilers generating better code
than big "generalized" compilers which use intermediate code/virtual
machine.... i'd however NOT compare retargetable compilers (such as
gcc or small-c) to dedicated compilers.... since the latter
_generally_ produces much better code compared to eg GCC. (what a
coincedence... i am just facing the problem regarding gcc targetted on
ARM cpu vs. the ARMCC supplied by ARM-technologies... you get like
10times speed improve with the dedicated compiler here).

however i gotta say that in that point cc65 already does a
surprisingly good job..... the z80 compilers i worked with spit out
much more of a mess ;=)


-- 
Best regards,
 groepaz                            mailto:groepaz_at_gmx.net


----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.


Date view Thread view Subject view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2001-12-14 22:05:40 CET