> I disagree. sdcc supports targets that might be called horrible for C. > But the Z80 is not one of them. The Z80 is okay; not pefect, but okay. > It is not too hard to set up a frame pointer (as sdcc usually does in > ix), and use it for accessing the stack.
I guess its all relative, but if you compare native assembler to compiler performance then Z80 does not run C that well compared to many processors with better stack relative operations. It's great at COBOL but not C. 8bit at a time IX relative operations with very long cycle times may work, but the performance versus non stack argument languages is awful. Yes there are CPU's a lot worse at running C and SDCC does minor miracles. > > The simple fact you can do things like LD HL, (SP-30) totally > > changes the way you generate code IMHO. > > Not really. You save the code for setting up the frame pointer at > function entry, but otherwise the generated code is very similar. sdcc > has backends for the Rabbit 2000, Rabbit 3000A and TLCS-90. These do > have some instructions with stack-pointer-relative adressing, but in > the sdcc source the backend is the same as the Z80 one (with a few > if(TARGET_IS_TLCS90), etc) in there. You also need to allocate stuff carefully to the various register banks and the stack but I bow to your far superior knowledge of SDCC Alan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Time is money. Stop wasting it! Get your web API in 5 minutes. www.restlet.com/download http://p.sf.net/sfu/restlet _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
