On 2018-03-21 21:07, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > Am 20.03.2018 um 22:19 schrieb Maarten Brock: >> As for comparison of mcs51 code. I can tell that Keil did already a lot >> better than SDCC several years ago. Since then SDCC got worse and Keil >> stood still. >> >> Maarten > > Today, I looked into the mcs51 --model-large --stack-auto Dhrystone code > size situation in the SDCC 3.6.0 - SDCC 3.7.0 timeframe. Code size data > for Dhrystone can be seen in the attached graph, the black arrows mark > the releases. > > As can be seen, about 63% of the code size increase from 3.6.0 to 3.7.0 > came from a single commit. > > That commit enabled support for a standard-compliant bool for mcs51. > Previously, the mcs51 used __bit for bool (which meant that arrays of > bool were not supported, nor pointers to bool not bool in struct/union). > > I hope we can partially undo that regression by optimizing the handling > of bool in the mcs51 backend a bit. > > Philipp > Or maybe allow for choosing between the standard compliant way and the __bit way by means if a flag or compiler directive. I do realize that linking modules with different implementation of bool is bound to be problematic or even fail, but I'm not sure if that will be a problem in real life.
BR Erlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
