RE: RES: [Dev-C++] generated .exe is too big

[Per W. <pw...@ia...>]

Forgot a comment. See below

/Per W

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Ioannis Vranos wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Per Westermark [mailto:pw...@ia...]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 5:26 AM
> > To: Ioannis Vranos
> > Cc: Dev-C++ Mailing List
> > Subject: RE: RES: [Dev-C++] generated .exe is too big
> >
> >
> > The changes for C99 should not make a real difference in quality of
> > mapping against hardware.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > _Complex operators needs either multiple assembler
> > instructions or calls
> > to helper functions, to handle all combinations of NaN and
> > infinities. No
> > difference from support of float and double on a processor without fp
> > support. Linker wouldn't add these helper functions unless needed.
>
>
> Yes but there are processors with fp support. However there isn't any with
> complex support.
>

General purpose processors have a bit of lack of this support, but a
number of DSP processors do have built-in data types for complex numbers
since they are used in FFT evaluations etc. In this case, the _Complex
data type makes C code more portable. Previous implementations has had to
add non-standard additions for handling this data type.

In the same way, a number of processors have 1-bit variables. When
programming the 8051 processor, one compiler I have been using have added
the extra keyword bit just to allow the use of these variables. Now it
gets defined in the base language, allowing easy portability to other C
vendors having a compiler for that processor.

It should be noted that while C++ is more used on PC-class hardware and
upwards, C is very large in the embedded market, and the guys implementing
these compilers have a tough time constantly adding extra data types and
keywords just because the NEED to map the full capability set of the used
processor.

In desktop programming, we don't give a damn if the compiler ignores using
one or two exotic processor instructions but in the embedded market that
instruction might be the difference between a working and a non-working
application, and no designer designs in +10 - +50% higher chips multiplied
by 100k units to get an extra feature and not being able to use it.

With _Bool and _Complex data types, they might test-run the application on
their normal PC while developing, and then recompile the source with the
target compiler and make timing and final test runs on the real metal.

>
>
> > It isn't possible to add _Bool and _Complex as just typedef,
> > since it's a
> > question of giving the language the correct operators too. In C++ with
> > operator overloading we can add a _Complex type on our own,
> > but in C it
> > has to be made as a hard-coded data type.
>
>
>
> I mean they could avoid polluting the namespace. And what about size_t? In
> C99 it can be some type other than the provided standard built in ones, and
> yet is provided through header file only.
>
> In any case, these things do increase the size of the final executable.
>
>
> Ioannis Vranos
>
> * Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com
> * Alternative URL 1: http://run.to/noicys
> * Alternative URL 2: http://www.noicys.cjb.net
>
>
> Anti-racism movement: http://www.positive-youthfoundation.org
> Iraq Peace Pledge: http://www.peacepledge.org
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Dev-cpp-users mailing list
> Dev...@li...
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.noicys.cjb.net/devcpp/ub.htm
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dev-cpp-users
>