From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <16513104bf876d67dcbb094b8f545d54@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] const
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
Date: Wed,  7 Dec 2005 17:30:42 +0200
In-Reply-To: <59f07a0382a6955f607b8d9c97fde230@quintile.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: bc2280c2-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> To cap this the last time I did use a 16bit cpu and tried to do this,
> examination of the assembly proved the (name deleted) compiler was too
> dumb to take advantage.

Now, irrespective of which compiler Steve is referring to...

In the delusion that I may have to migrate to embedded systems when my
luck with system and network administration runs out, I follow the
traffic on the avr-gcc mailing list.  Even though criticism on _this_
list of GCC is often borne out there, one has to grant that avr-gcc is
a dramatically superior product to any other offering for the target
CPU.

GCC is a monstrosity, but nothing else addresses all the issues that
it resolves.  The cost is extremely high, but in my opinion it is
worth paying.  I think GCC is closer to an organism than to a formal
translator and that may well be its strongest suit.

++L