From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,f41f1f25333fa601
X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mvw@ozemail.com.au (Michael Warner)
Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry
Date: 1996/12/05
Message-ID: <586ahn$tab@morse.satech.net.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 202493922
distribution: world
references: <55ea3g$m1j@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3280DA96.15FB@hso.link.com>
 <1996Nov6.210957.3070@ole.cdac.com> <5683sk$bsc@news.ccit.arizona.edu>
 <Pine.GSO.3.95.961113084108.24113B-100000@nunic.nu.edu>
 <dewar.848291728@merv> <b127cc$f381c.17e@marius>
content-type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
organization: <private>
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime
Date: 1996-12-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



>I have seen what's been done for the 68HC11 with gcc:
>the implementation had to provide virtual 16- and 32-bit
>registers in RAM because gcc assumes a register rich
>architecture. The code quality is consequently poor.
>Of course, this is fine if all you want a free compiler to play
>with.
>
>The 68HC11 represents a much more sophisticated processor
>than the 8051. Normal mechanisms, like using stack relative
>addressing for parameters, are not an option on the 8051.

My experience with an expensive 8051 C compiler was disastrous;
it simply can't support the HLL paradigm effectively. However,
I would pit it against the HC11 for real-time hand-coded stuff,
which is what I use it for; I doubt that the HC11 has such good
bit-handling support or such a fast UART.