Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #31194
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? |
| Date | 2022-09-06 09:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tf6sfs$t06u$1@solani.org> (permalink) |
| References | <tb8q43$ftri$1@solani.org> <tf54sg$tamn$1@solani.org> <tf5bsg$3ktct$1@dont-email.me> |
Am 05.09.22 um 19:32 schrieb Don Y: > > I've rarely worried about code *size* and only seldom worried about > efficiency (execution speed). > > But, I *do* get annoyed if the generated code doesn't do what it > was supposed to do! Or, does it with unexpected side-effects, etc. However, the replies so far show that code size, not wrong code is the problem. IMO, that is not surprising for mcs51: The mcs51 port in SDCC is old, bug reports come in rarely, and in recnet years, most work on mcs51 has been bugfixes. IMO, the mcs51 port is very stable. Improving code generation always comes with the risk of introducing bugs. Still, if time allows, it might be worth it (and I hope that most of the new bugs will be found before a release). > To that end, the biggest win was vendor responsiveness; knowing > that reporting a bug will result in prompt attention to fix *that* > bug […] > > Unfortunately (for you, supporting a product), the only way to get that > sort of responsiveness is to make "support" your full-time job. <frown> Unpaid support with fixed response times for a free compiler doesn't look like a good full-time job to me. IMO, in general, the SDCC support channels (ticket trackers, mailing lists) are quite responsive; most of the time, there is a reply within hours, but sometimes it takes much longer. > […] > > [The devices I used were unlike current offerings in that they didn't > require > large "vendor/manufacturer libraries" to implement basic functionality > of on-chip components] > That is still true for many 8-bit devices, which are the targets of SDCC. >> In my opinion, the best way forward from here to make SDCC more >> competitive vs. non-free compilers is: >> >> 0) Improve machine-independent optimizations >> 1) Improve machine-dependent optimizations for mcs51 >> 2) Improve debug support and integration >> 3) Find and fix bugs > > If "uptake" is your goal, you might focus on just a single processor (8051 > family seems a common application) and be known for how well you address > *that* segment of the market -- rather than trying to bring the quality > of all code generators up simultaneously. Well, I asked for reasons why people are using non-free compilers instead of SDCC. Many of the replies were indeed for mcs51. IMO, this is because the mcs51 is a common µC where SDCC has fallen behind vs. the non-free compilers. SDCC has other ports, that got far less replies, because the architectures are less common (e.g. ds390) or because SDCC is already the leading compiler for them (e.g. stm8). 0)-3) were chosen is a way that I hope will make SDCC more competitive for mcs51, while not neglecting other ports.
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2022-07-20 13:49 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? "Peter Heitzer" <peter.heitzer@rz.uni-regensburg.de> - 2022-07-20 14:23 +0000
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-07-20 18:33 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2022-07-20 15:55 -0400
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-07-21 12:58 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-21 15:05 +0000
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2022-07-21 13:18 -0400
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Clifford Heath <no_spam@please.net> - 2022-07-22 13:00 +1000
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2022-07-22 09:27 -0400
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2022-08-25 19:14 -0700
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net> - 2022-08-26 17:17 +0100
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 18:45 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2022-07-21 11:10 -0700
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2022-07-21 21:56 +0300
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-07-21 20:56 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net> - 2022-07-22 12:04 +0100
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2022-09-01 23:25 -0700
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Michael Schwingen <news-1513678000@discworld.dascon.de> - 2022-09-04 20:39 +0000
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2022-09-05 17:33 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2022-09-05 10:32 -0700
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2022-09-06 09:22 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2022-09-06 01:59 -0700
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2022-09-06 12:12 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2022-09-06 04:26 -0700
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-09-06 11:09 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2022-09-06 12:41 +0200
Re: Why use non-free compilers (Keil, etc) for architectures supported by SDCC? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-09-06 15:00 +0200
csiph-web