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