Am 23.09.2011 21:04, schrieb Maarten Brock: >> Am 23.09.2011 19:03, schrieb Raphael Neider: >> >>> >>> We had discussed this problem when it was implemented and did not >>> find *the* ideal solution back then. Not sure if we can find one now >>> :-( >> >> Where can I find this discussion? Not doing the argument promotions >> (i.e. float to double, small thing like unsigned char to int, big things >> to long) required by the standard looks like a bug to me. > > I'm not sure where the discussion was held, though > probably on the developer mailing list. > > Of course there is no "ideal" solution. But if you don't > want this behaviour then do not use the SDCC extensions > and use --std-c99 or --std-c89 instead. The extension is > useful for "small devices" which are the exact target of > SDCC. SDCC != GCC.
Ah, if standard behaviour is enabled by using --std-c99 / --std-c89 it's okay. Nevertheless, IMO breaking standard-compliance to save a few bytes or cycles is not worth it. There's so much untapped potential for optimization and cases where sdcc generates horrible code; there's much more to be gained by improvements that don't break standard-compliance. Philipp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2 _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
