M O Altmann wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "mediatronix" <info@...>
> To: "'M O Altmann'" <m.altmann@...>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:59:38 +0200
>>I have looked myself to SDCC and I'm very interested in your
>>progress in this. However, I think that the Picoblaze core
>>is very limited in supporting features for a C compiler.
>>There is for instance no stack, you have to simulate one with
C doesn't have the concept of stack too, besides the implementation in
some ports that use stack to pass arguments to functions in the stack,
but its also possible to put arguments to functions in the general
memory area instead of the stack.
If I understand correctly, currently, in the mcs51 port, local variables
are not declared on the stack too.
>>registers and a separate RAM. The Picoblaze-3 core has a
>>scratch pad memory (64 byte) which could be used for that.
>>There is also a limited program space. Still I think it is a
>>good exercise to try to port SDCC. It could also show the
>>shortcomings of the core and give ideas about any
>>additions/changes. The core is quite simple in construction
>>and pBlazeIDE can be extended simply for and other core.
>>Please let me know how pBlazeIDE could be enhanced to
>>incorporate SDCC support.
Since they are fully supporting this idea. Maybe you can get them to
chip in some programming work by their developers?
Seems that SDCC is really going to make it big time.
Phuah Yee Keat