Hi, does anyone know if Keil has added support for calls through a function pointer table, or if they are about to do so? Right now it is a bomb, especially when using banked memory. /Christian
Why, why, why doesn't the Keil compiler analyze all subtrees, even though called through a function pointer? Because you're underestimating the scope of the problem. Static call tree analysis of a C program involving function pointers is, ultimately, an impossible mission, because of the Halting Problem --- you would have to be able to predict the complete behaviour of the program (and all its inputs, i.e. The World), to know for certain which possible call paths will actually be taken, and which won't. So at some point, the tools just have to give up trying. There might be some truth in your claim that Keil have given up a tad bit early. The "function pointer tables in code space" trick is IMHO a very useful extension of the realm of correctly analyzed usages of function pointers. It covers the majority of cases where function pointers provide enough benefit to outweigh the problems they create. OTOH the 8051 platform is quite severely limited itself, so enormous efforts spent on allowing limitless use of function pointers would arguably be a bad use of Keil's time and your money.
It doesn't get better at all when I read: "Why, oh why, does so many insist on coding the '51 as if it was a "mini PC"?." My question is why? Why, why, why doesn't the Keil compiler analyze all subtrees, even though called through a function pointer? Ok, I am compiling for a different target, but the problem and complexity is the same for all targets. That being a Z80, 8051, AVR, ARM or Pentium for that matter. It is just a matter of what the limitations are. OK, I'll rephrase, your question is "why does Keil not make the '51 behave in a way the architecture were never designed for" You are asking Keil to make software that changes the hardware. You can overcome your problem by switching to a less efficient common base compiler which use the traditional C method of transferring variables on the stack, instead of gaining magnitudes of efficiency by adapting to the unique architecture of the '51 by overlaying. By doing so you will lose some advantages, but your beloved function pointers will be possible. If you want to use the '51 do not complain that it is what it is. Erik
No, I has nothing to do with hardware what so ever. And yes the 8051 wasn't designed with complex calling in mind, but that is not saying that you can't! What I am talking about is purely compiler related. Please make no mistake about that. Forget about target type - it has no meaning here. We have compiler 'A' from company 'A-soft'. Can you make a compiler that can handle function trees through function pointers? The answer is without question yes! Are there limitations depeding on target? The answer is again yes. Does this mean that function pointer utilization and data overlaying is not possible? The answer is no! True, the 8051 has a very noticable limit, but the compiler can easily use X-stack for parameters and thereby overcome much of the limitations. Don't narrow your sigth by looking at hardware restrictions. Look forward and investigate how you can overcome obstacles. If everybody said 'that is impossible' then we would get no where. There isn't anything you can't do with the 8051, as long as you don't exceed the memory limits. The Keil compiler is VERY EFFICIENT when it comes to generate efficient code for the 8051 (I have never questioned this), so I think that it is a shame that it can't go all the way. It is tad annoying that you have to take different compiler capabilities into consideration when writing code, when they all should be able to handle the same code. /Christian
The Keil compiler is VERY EFFICIENT when it comes to generate efficient code for the 8051 (I have never questioned this), so I think that it is a shame that it can't go all the way. EXACTLY and the price for the efficieny is that function calls becomes "troublesome". When there is a tradeoff some will always disagree with the decision. All I am saying is that if you do not like the tradeoff Keihas made, get another compiler. It is tad annoying that you have to take different compiler capabilities into consideration when writing code, when they all should be able to handle the same code. That statement is, in my opinionn, pure and unadulterated bullshit. That would mean that Keil '51 should not have a bit variable because Visual C does not. Erik
Sigh! I thought that it was pretty obvious that we were taking about standard C code and not specific compiler instructions as 'Setbit', which refers directly to assembler instructions. What you are saying is almost like: "the compiler doesn't need to handle switch-case statements as it handles if-else more effieciently". And that doesn't make sense. I am not talking about making trade-offs with the existing Keil optimizations but to add some extra functionality that will improve handling of function pointers in a Keil environment. Forget about it. I don't think you understand what I am talking about.
Forget about it. I don't think you understand what I am talking about. Oh yes, I do. Erik
Can you make a compiler that can handle function trees through function pointers? The answer is without question yes! Perhaps yes when the pointer table has constant values, but if the function pointers are 'dynamic', I think probably not practically.
Yes, that is right. Dynamic function pointers are impossible to work with (optimization wise). But for static pointers it should be. Thanks to you Hans-Bernhard for a very detailed reply. You know what you are talking about /Christian
"Forget about it. I don't think you understand what I am talking about." "Oh yes, I do." No, you only think you do, but you're so wrapped up in one of your favourite rants that you haven't noticed yet that you don't. I suggest you take the time to read the thread carefully.