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.
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!
erac,,,,
i not be wanting pictueer of you!!!!!
my man rafar wanting new becuase it broken and toren.
he looking to gooogle and not seeing you and he be sadded!!!!!
you be on bebo and youtube?????
pleese you be having pictuer for man jafar?????
.. who I am, I see no reason to scare little children that might accidentially see my picture if it was on the web :)
Erik
rahib, sir erac:
If things goes on the this way, sir erac will have to following his own advise: start walking, and since that won't help (probably), switch to running !!!! :-)
I will be gone for a while, vacation time!
I meant of course,
"rahib, sir erac:
If things go on the this way, sir erac will have to follow his own advise: start walking, and since that won't help (probably), switch to running !!!! :-)
I will be gone for a while, vacation time!"