| Author |
Message |
Mike Harrison
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:37:01 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 2005-10-13, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way.
Especially for the vile arhitecture.
Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than
that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon.
The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted
piece of crap that had ever been devised.
Never used it's predecessor, the 8048, eh? After the 8048, the
8051 seemed like a PDP-11.
Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand
if Microchip didn't support it so well.
So far, I've avoided the PIC, but I still have "fond" memories
of shuffling 8048 assembly language code around to try to get
the page boundaries in the right places.
|
Sounds just like the fun of juggling AVR code around to get all the relative branches in range..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spehro Pefhany
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:50:42 GMT, the renowned Mike Harrison
<mike@whitewing.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:37:01 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
On 2005-10-13, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way.
Especially for the vile arhitecture.
Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than
that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon.
The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted
piece of crap that had ever been devised.
Never used it's predecessor, the 8048, eh? After the 8048, the
8051 seemed like a PDP-11.
Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand
if Microchip didn't support it so well.
So far, I've avoided the PIC, but I still have "fond" memories
of shuffling 8048 assembly language code around to try to get
the page boundaries in the right places.
Sounds just like the fun of juggling AVR code around to get all the relative branches in range.....
|
Worse. The 8048 did branches by just shoving the lower 8 bits of the
target address into the PC-- so even code that "looked" very close
might not be within range, and if you added or subtracted one
instruction near the beginning of the code it could affect (break)
branches throughout the rest of the program. The 8051 replaced that
with relative branches.
Nice code density, though.
Say, is there anyone programming the ARM7 in assembly?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grant Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On 2005-10-13, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
| Quote: | So far, I've avoided the PIC, but I still have "fond" memories
of shuffling 8048 assembly language code around to try to get
the page boundaries in the right places.
Sounds just like the fun of juggling AVR code around to get all
the relative branches in range.....
Worse. The 8048 did branches by just shoving the lower 8 bits of the
target address into the PC-- so even code that "looked" very close
might not be within range, and if you added or subtracted one
instruction near the beginning of the code it could affect (break)
branches throughout the rest of the program.
|
And it seems like it usually did...
| Quote: | Say, is there anyone programming the ARM7 in assembly?
|
Just the usual bits of RTOS glue and things like an IP checksum
routine (it was surprisingly difficult to beat the BSD stack's
C version).
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! My haircut is totally
at traditional!
visi.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grant Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On 2005-10-13, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way.
Especially for the vile arhitecture.
Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than
that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon.
The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted
piece of crap that had ever been devised.
|
Never used it's predecessor, the 8048, eh? After the 8048, the
8051 seemed like a PDP-11.
| Quote: | Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand
if Microchip didn't support it so well.
|
So far, I've avoided the PIC, but I still have "fond" memories
of shuffling 8048 assembly language code around to try to get
the page boundaries in the right places.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Civilization is
at fun! Anyway, it keeps
visi.com me busy!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Hansen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:25:47 +0000, Ian Bell <ruffrecords@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Paul Burke wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way.
Especially for the vile arhitecture.
Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than
that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon.
|
The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted
piece of crap that had ever been devised.
Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand
if Microchip didn't support it so well.
Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Bell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
Paul Burke wrote:
| Quote: | Ian Bell wrote:
Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way.
Especially for the vile arhitecture.
|
Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than
that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon.
Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:28:08 GMT, iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
wrote:
| Quote: | snip
Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand
if Microchip didn't support it so well.
|
Which is true and one might have hoped would be a lesson from which
their competition could well learn.
Jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tauno Voipio
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
| Quote: | Sounds just like the fun of juggling AVR code around to get all the relative branches in range.....
|
That's a different story - fixed pages a la PDP-8, 8048 and PIC are
much more troublesome than limited relative addresses (like AVR
and many others).
It's pretty easy to control the relative address range
by keeping each function strictly KISS. Combining several
KISS pieces to fit the fixed pages is much more like attempting
to sit on NATO barbed wire (= PITA).
| Quote: | Say, is there anyone programming the ARM7 in assembly?
|
Me. But just those pieces that do not work in C. Kind of
initial hardware startup and lowest-level exception handling
(examples provided on request).
All true RISC processors are royal pain to program in assembler,
ARM is actually at the easier end of scale (try a Sparc or MIPS).
--
Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spehro Pefhany
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:58:24 -0000, the renowned Grant Edwards
<grante@visi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 2005-10-13, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
Say, is there anyone programming the ARM7 in assembly?
Just the usual bits of RTOS glue and things like an IP checksum
routine (it was surprisingly difficult to beat the BSD stack's
C version).
|
It looks like it might actually be pleasant to program in assembly if
you have a suitable application (small and not too C-appropriate) and
decent tools (especially a good simulator).
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grant Edwards
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On 2005-10-13, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
| Quote: | Say, is there anyone programming the ARM7 in assembly?
Just the usual bits of RTOS glue and things like an IP checksum
routine (it was surprisingly difficult to beat the BSD stack's
C version).
It looks like it might actually be pleasant to program in
assembly if you have a suitable application (small and not too
C-appropriate) and decent tools (especially a good simulator).
|
It's quite nice to program in assembly. Though it's called a
"RISC" processor, the user doesn't have to worry about
pipelines, instruction scheduling, delayed branching or any of
that sort of stuff.
However, I found it takes a bit of thought to get the most out
of a couple features:
1) All arithmetic instructions can affect the flags or not,
depending on the user's wishes. That can lead to some
pretty slick control structures where the conditional
branch isn't dependent on the most recently executed
arithmetic instruction but rather a prior one.
2) The arithmetic instructions can all do a shift on one of
the operands before doing the "normal" operation called for
by the instruction.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I don't understand
at the HUMOUR of the THREE
visi.com STOOGES!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Harrison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:55:37 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:50:42 GMT, the renowned Mike Harrison
mike@whitewing.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:37:01 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
On 2005-10-13, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way.
Especially for the vile arhitecture.
Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than
that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon.
The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted
piece of crap that had ever been devised.
Never used it's predecessor, the 8048, eh? After the 8048, the
8051 seemed like a PDP-11.
Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand
if Microchip didn't support it so well.
So far, I've avoided the PIC, but I still have "fond" memories
of shuffling 8048 assembly language code around to try to get
the page boundaries in the right places.
Sounds just like the fun of juggling AVR code around to get all the relative branches in range.....
Worse. The 8048 did branches by just shoving the lower 8 bits of the
target address into the PC-- so even code that "looked" very close
might not be within range, and if you added or subtracted one
instruction near the beginning of the code it could affect (break)
branches throughout the rest of the program. The 8051 replaced that
with relative branches.
Nice code density, though.
Say, is there anyone programming the ARM7 in assembly?
|
I wrote a ton of assembler back when it was only ARM2 - really nice to work with - only pain was
keeping track of which registers you'd used for what.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mochuelo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:29:13 +0100, Sergio Masci <sergio@nospam.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Mochuelo wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:40:35 -0400, "Bill Giovino"
editor@noospam-microcontroller.com> wrote:
http://microcontroller.com/news/microchip_pic24.asp
Up to 40MIPS performance, up to 256Kbytes Flash, a 23-bit address bus, and
Microchip's benchmarks show that it's faster than the Infineon C16X. A parts
selection matrix is included.
- Bill Giovino
Executive Editor
http://Microcontroller.com
Microchip sucks. I can't understand how come someone is paying 3.65
EUR for a PIC16F77, when an Atmel ATmega48 can be bought for 1.21 EUR.
(DigiKey, 100 pcs). The PIC is sheer crap compared to the AVR. I
didn't know so many rednecks were using MCUs. Otherwise, I can't
understand Microchip's survival.
Infineon C16X? What are you talking about? That is also sheer crap.
Get a life, and use any ARM7 (Philips, Atmel, TI, ...) or even a 24xx
TI DSP for a lower price.
Professionals solve problems and take advantage of the properties of a
"strange" architecture.
|
Nice. So, what are the advantages of the architecture of a PIC16F over
that of an AVR, for instance?
| Quote: | Amatures bellyache about everything to distract others from the fact that
they cannot compete with professionals.
|
I might be an "amature" (depending on what it means for you), but it
takes an amateur to defend something that is both worse _and_ more
expensive. Professionalism is in fact the state of having learnt
already the right criteria to decide upon.
| Quote: | Regards
Sergio Masci |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Harrison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:37:58 +0200, Mochuelo <cucafera@RE_MO_VE_THIStelefonica.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:29:13 +0100, Sergio Masci <sergio@nospam.com
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Mochuelo wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:40:35 -0400, "Bill Giovino"
editor@noospam-microcontroller.com> wrote:
http://microcontroller.com/news/microchip_pic24.asp
Up to 40MIPS performance, up to 256Kbytes Flash, a 23-bit address bus, and
Microchip's benchmarks show that it's faster than the Infineon C16X. A parts
selection matrix is included.
- Bill Giovino
Executive Editor
http://Microcontroller.com
Microchip sucks. I can't understand how come someone is paying 3.65
EUR for a PIC16F77, when an Atmel ATmega48 can be bought for 1.21 EUR.
(DigiKey, 100 pcs). The PIC is sheer crap compared to the AVR. I
didn't know so many rednecks were using MCUs. Otherwise, I can't
understand Microchip's survival.
Infineon C16X? What are you talking about? That is also sheer crap.
Get a life, and use any ARM7 (Philips, Atmel, TI, ...) or even a 24xx
TI DSP for a lower price.
Professionals solve problems and take advantage of the properties of a
"strange" architecture.
Nice. So, what are the advantages of the architecture of a PIC16F over
that of an AVR, for instance?
|
AVR and PIC have probably about the same number of architectural annoyances - each has good and bad
points, but in the big picture, archictecture is WAY down the list of selection criteria compared to
things like best-fit of peripherals to the application, cost, availbility (Atmel have a bad track
record here), support etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Bell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
Mike Harrison wrote:
| Quote: |
AVR and PIC have probably about the same number of architectural
annoyances - each has good and bad points, but in the big picture,
archictecture is WAY down the list of selection criteria compared to
things like best-fit of peripherals to the application, cost, availbility
(Atmel have a bad track record here), support etc.
|
Absolutely and the 8051 has them both beaten hands down on that criteria
alone.
Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Walker
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Produc |
|
|
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes:
| Quote: |
Say, is there anyone programming the ARM7 in assembly?
|
Well, somewhere around the Cambridge, UK diaspora are a *lot* of people
who programmed ARM2,3,6,7 and StrongARM for years in assembly and C: the
old Acorn developers and users.
*Lovely* assembly language. Designed by someone who had written a *lot*
of 6502, and wanted a better one.
cheers, Rich.
--
rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | rw@shadow.org.uk
technical director 251 Liverpool Road |
need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in