• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 22 replies
  • Subscribers 21 subscribers
  • Views 6242 views
  • Users 0 members are here
2025 survey

We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.

Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Support for calling through function pointer tables

Christian Wittrock

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

Parents
  • 0 in reply to Christian Wittrock

    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

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Christian Wittrock

    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

Children
  • 0 in reply to erik malund

    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.

  • 0 in reply to Christian Wittrock

    Forget about it. I don't think you understand what I am talking about.

    Oh yes, I do.

    Erik

  • 0 in reply to erik malund

    "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.