Prev: Tool Chain for Arm Cortex M3 on Linux Host
Next: Recommendation: Low power microcontroller for battery powered logger
From: Dave Nadler on 31 Mar 2010 17:44
On Mar 30, 12:12 pm, d_s_klein <d_s_kl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time I checked, the Keil chain was a commercialized version of
> the GNU compiler.

No, it is their own implementation, and is not based on GCC.
They claim C++ is validated with Plum-Hall, but do not publish the
test results.

ARM publishes the same compiler with additional chips supported
in a different package, but it is still based on the proprietary
Keil compiler and not GCC.

Hope that clears it up a bit,
Best Regards, Dave
From: hamilton on 31 Mar 2010 22:06
On 3/31/2010 12:53 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:54 pm, d_s_klein<d_s_kl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 3:06 pm, Hans-Bernhard Br�ker<HBBroe...(a)t-online.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> d_s_klein wrote:
>>>> Last time I checked, the Keil chain was a commercialized version of
>>>> the GNU compiler.
>>
>>> Then either your check was rather completely flawed, or your memory is.
>>
>> I've forgotten things, and made mistakes before.
>>
>> Any idea what I should be doing with the .tgz file I downloaded from
>> keil.com? The one that they were required to publish because of the
>> GPL code in their ARM compiler?
>>
>> Regards,
>> RK.
>
> While I'm waiting for the Keil folks to call back,
> I'd sure appreciate any feedback from folks
> with C++ experience using the current Keil
> product...
>
> Thanks !
> Best Regards, Dave
Are there any web sites available that compares the amount of overhead
C++ carries compared to just plain C ?

hamilton

From: D Yuniskis on 31 Mar 2010 22:11
hamilton wrote:
> Are there any web sites available that compares the amount of overhead
> C++ carries compared to just plain C ?

In what context? I.e., if you "write C in C++" what
overhead did you anticipate?

I've often wanted to recode an existing project in C (or C++)
to compare the overall size/speed/etc. with C++ (or C).
But, even that wold be an unfair comparison as you (at least, *I*)
approach designs in C (C++) differently than I do in C++ (C).
From: hamilton on 1 Apr 2010 01:24
On 3/31/2010 7:11 PM, D Yuniskis wrote:
> hamilton wrote:
>> Are there any web sites available that compares the amount of overhead
>> C++ carries compared to just plain C ?
>
> In what context? I.e., if you "write C in C++" what
> overhead did you anticipate?
>
> I've often wanted to recode an existing project in C (or C++)
> to compare the overall size/speed/etc. with C++ (or C).
> But, even that wold be an unfair comparison as you (at least, *I*)
> approach designs in C (C++) differently than I do in C++ (C).

Yes, good point.

Most new "embedded programmers" are from the desktop world.

I would like to know, as you stated, what would be the overhead for the
same program using C++ constructs.

By your comment, I doubt too many programmers know that there is a
difference.

I'll look over the Keil web site and see if there is anything there.

thanks

hamilton
From: Dave Nadler on 1 Apr 2010 08:54
On Apr 1, 1:24 am, hamilton <hamil...(a)nothere.com> wrote:
> On 3/31/2010 7:11 PM, D Yuniskis wrote:
>
> > hamilton wrote:
> >> Are there any web sites available that compares the amount of overhead
> >> C++ carries compared to just plain C ?
>
> > In what context? I.e., if you "write C in C++" what
> > overhead did you anticipate?
>
> > I've often wanted to recode an existing project in C (or C++)
> > to compare the overall size/speed/etc. with C++ (or C).
> > But, even that wold be an unfair comparison as you (at least, *I*)
> > approach designs in C (C++) differently than I do in C++ (C).
>
> Yes, good point.
>
> Most new "embedded programmers" are from the desktop world.
>
> I would like to know, as you stated, what would be the overhead for the
> same program using C++ constructs.
>
> By your comment, I doubt too many programmers know that there is a
> difference.
>
> I'll look over the Keil web site and see if there is anything there.
>
> thanks
>
> hamilton

Comparing C and C++ is a bit of apples and oranges.
Properly written C++ can reduce source code size, reduce
execution size and time, improve maintainability. Bad C++
is vastly more horrid than bad C, which can be horrid.
Use of C++ by the inexperienced is usually scary.
And you'll be unpleasantly surprised if you say
accidentally drag in the C++ library functions for
stream IO into a small micro...

Hope that helps !
Best Regards, Dave

PS: If anybody knows of a well-written doc discussing
C++ for embedded in depth, we'd be much obliged !
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Tool Chain for Arm Cortex M3 on Linux Host
Next: Recommendation: Low power microcontroller for battery powered logger