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!
Mr. Smoked Sardine asks I am curious - what does it do that the average editor built into the average IDE (eg uVision) doesn't? finding my answer not exhaustive enough he posts What does an Emacs class of editor give you that you actually use which provides a real benefit in terms of development efficiency over the average editor supplied with an IDE? then, after requesting a more exhaustive answer he posts The difficulty I have is that the content of your posts is so rambling
You see, this is the confused mess you get yourself into when you don't spend a little time actually reading the thread properly before you jump in with your size 12s.
I do occasionally converse with others, you know.
do you have the cake you ate?
Er, what?
before you jump in with your size 12s. My shoes are size 14