It's time to do some work on you're compiler. It generates the same code it did 20 years ago. I have to do tricks, instead of writing normal portable code, to get it to generate good code or just use inline assembler. This of course is nothing new, I've been telling you this for almost a decade. Keep in mind that all Intel processors are little endian and that you're compiler generates big endian code, why? You should at least offer a compiler switch to select endianness. Why don't you support C++ and MISRA? Oh and BTW IAR does all of the above TODAY! So clearly they haven't been standing still. (Notice who wrote the paper.)
www.eetimes.com/.../The-Inefficiency-of-C--Fact-or-Fiction-
So I'm suppose to pay for annual support (for decades) that provides no updates to the compiler (they do add parts and make changes to the IDE)? And then pay for another compiler on top of that because compeditors actually do development work? Therein lies the problem, both have extended the C language and I'd have to rewrite my legacy code instead of being able to reuse it. So because I've been using Keil for some 25 years I now have to go elsewhere to get a modern tool? I want a tool that can detect more problems at complile time (C++ type checking is a step toward Lint, MISRA is also useful as a methodology). Plus Keil (Arm) are in bed with vendors who's chips I use and switching compilers for lack of support would put me further out on the support limb. I just want a tool developer to actually develope their tool instead of charging maintance and not fix bugs or move forward.
I just want a tool developer to actually develope their tool instead of charging maintance and not fix bugs or move forward. we can discuss, ad nausem, which features are fitting for a compiler for an 8 bit system, but WHAT BUGS
Erik
Plus Keil (Arm) are in bed with vendors who's chips I use and switching compilers for lack of support would put me further out on the support limb
you seem to be a "C is C" guy, what does it matter which compiler a chip manufacturer is "in bed with"
PS re tool vendors: I know of no instance where the competitor(s) do(es) not have (a) feature(s) that I would prefer to my chosen (to me most attractiven) tool
It's been many years now since I reported a bug that wasn't fixed so I've forgotten it now because I designed around it. They did give me a free year of support to no avail, they didn't fix the bug in either year.
Ah the point here is that the vendor got in bed with Keil and corrupted their hardware to be compatible with the compiler. Meaning that all the standard 8051 registers were little endian while all the proprietary extended architecture registers were big endian, what a nightmare to write code for.
"Ah the point here is that the vendor got in bed with Keil and corrupted their hardware to be compatible with the compiler. Meaning that all the standard 8051 registers were little endian while all the proprietary extended architecture registers were big endian, what a nightmare to write code for."
Your text clearly indicates that you don't know the subject and is based on factless false assumptions.
"Your text clearly indicates that you don't know the subject and is based on factless false assumptions."
While your ignorant comment is ambiguous enough to have no meaning at all, even the FAEs of the manufacturer (who shall remain nameless) recognized what I pointed out to them. If a Keil person wants clarification then I would be more than happy to provide them the facts since I've already done so in the past.
And I can without doubt say that you do not know the 8051 as well as myself since you are not John Wharton. I have done countless projects with the 8051 family over more than 25 years.
Meaning that all the standard 8051 registers were little endian
No, they aren't, and never were. None of the standard 8051 as much as has an endianness to speak of.
I have done countless projects with the 8051 family over more than 25 years.
And you appear to be on a mission to prove that despite all conventional wisdom to the contrary, a person can actually be wrong about a fundamental aspect of their field of work for all those 25 years --- and proud of it.
DPTR, DPH, DPL.... care to explain their little endian addresses? How about the fact that Intel only does little endian processors? Or that the 8051 evolved from the 8048, another little endian processor.
Can you explain how Keil is and has been the only compiler vendor for the 8051 that has tried to make it little endian inspite of its own architecture and history while everyone else has implemented it correctly?
It is a little 8 Bit CPU it is not going to Run Full C++. C++ is Not C running it it's error checks may or may not make sense. If you want MISRA and LINT then use LINT, what is the problem. How much can a 25 year old Compiler for a 30 year old CPU change? And does it help? Hi-tech changed their PIC Compiler I do not think they did anybody any favors. If Keil changes it enough Your legacy code may not work any more.
DPTR, DPH, DPL.... care to explain their little endian addresses?
Why would I? I've already stated there is no such thing.
DPTR doesn't even have an address, and the addresses of DPH and DPL could be exchanged without any consequence to code that would be worth mentioning. No pointer can point to either of them, so it doesn't matter if you have to advance by +1 or -1 to point to the other.
How about the fact that Intel only does little endian processors?
That doesn't apply here, because the 8051 is, for all practical intents and purposes, a no-endianness processor.
I'm not asking for full C++ (does anybody actually provide all of that and only that correctly? no), read the paper in the post, they're right on target.
"Why would I? I've already stated there is no such thing."
Well Intel disagrees with you and their opinion is the only one that really matters.
All the registers are little endian, 1-bit, 8-bit, 16-bit (capture 2, timer/counter 0-2, DPTR) as well as all the fields within them. Only with a very few exceptions (the one I'm not mentioning the mfgr for specifically) do other manufacturers that add on to the original specification deviate from little endian, just read the data books. Even the one exception forces little endian alignment (but not ordering) for some things, how bizare.
The subroutine calls push LSB then MSB (that's little endian). I know, you're going to say that the 16-bit constant instructions are big endian, think again, the first byte of the instruction (the actual opcode) or the little endian part is followed by a big endian then a little endian which is how a little endian machine works (little endian at lower address).
So do you work for Keil and are the person that got it backwards in the first place and are now trying to defend that mistake?
Care giving a citation of an actual statement by Intel, about the MCS51 architecture, that backs up your claim?
All the registers are little endian
Nonsense. The vast majority of 8051 registers are single bytes. Endianness can't even be defined for those. So much for "all registers".
capture 2
No such thing on an actual 8051.
timer/counter 0-2
Care explaining how a 16-bit timer stored in SFR addresses 8A and 8C (with a rather unrelated other SFR in between, at 8B) is little endian in any "CRITICAL" way?
Oh, and there's no such thing as timer/counter 2 in an actual 8051.
just read the data books
Which of the roughly 500 different data books describing 8051 variants in particular?
Oh, right, you wont't/can't divulge the particulars. Sure. And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean THEY are NOT out to get you.
forces little endian alignment
Nobody can force that, because that's a meaningless combination of words.
A couple posts before you were trying to discredit me as being too young to know what big-/little endian is about, and now I'm supposed to be none less than the Evil Mastermind that ruined your world? Could you make up your mind?
Did it ever occur to you that if all the world disagrees with you, this might be because you're plain and simply wrong?