• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 113 replies
  • Subscribers 21 subscribers
  • Views 18058 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

Code portability

Catcus Blip

Hello,
I was browsing through older posts that deal with the painful issue of portability (http://www.keil.com/forum/docs/thread8109.asp). I was (and still am) a big advocate of programming as much as possible conforming to the C standard, and having a layered structure that allowed "plugging-in" other hardware. But I have come to change my mind recently. I am reading the "ARM system developer's guide" (excellent book by the way. I'm reading it because I want to port some C167 code to an ARM9 environment) in which chapter 5 discusses writing efficient C code for an ARM. The point is, and it is fairly demonstrated, that even common, innocent looking C code can either be efficient of very inefficient on an ARM depending on specific choices made, let alone another processor used! So, if we are talking about squeezing every clock cycle out of a microcontroller - I do not believe that portability without ultimately littering the code is possible!

Parents
  • 0 in reply to erik malund

    The ease with which a piece of software (or file format) can be "ported"
    that, to me, reads "everything is portable, some more than other". If 'portability" is the ease, then a bit of ease is still the ease.

    Thinking that you can prove black==white is nothing to be proud of.

    And then it contradicts "It may be possible to translate mechanically from one assembly code (or even machine code) into another but this is not really portability".

    You only think that because you have failed to understand what goes before it.

    I would conclude that either nothing is portable or everything is portable. Whether you think it is portable depend on your definition of "the ease"

    What on earth is going on inside your head?

Reply
  • 0 in reply to erik malund

    The ease with which a piece of software (or file format) can be "ported"
    that, to me, reads "everything is portable, some more than other". If 'portability" is the ease, then a bit of ease is still the ease.

    Thinking that you can prove black==white is nothing to be proud of.

    And then it contradicts "It may be possible to translate mechanically from one assembly code (or even machine code) into another but this is not really portability".

    You only think that because you have failed to understand what goes before it.

    I would conclude that either nothing is portable or everything is portable. Whether you think it is portable depend on your definition of "the ease"

    What on earth is going on inside your head?

Children