[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question
From: |
hanzl |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question |
Date: |
Sun, 22 May 2005 10:31:53 +0200 |
> I guess 'C' standards have evolved or set taking into
> account only general purpose computers specially those
> running UNIX, DOS etc. But in embedded realm one has
> to take into account the kind of resources that are
> available, so should one really bother or comply with
> standards which are hard to implement in a given
> environment?
>
> Perhaps it may be a good idea to have a separate set
> of standards for embedded 'C'.
I have programs which run on many quite different systems, including
embedded SoC systems as well as huge UNIX clusters. While I am happy
to get access to all the special resources (at least for the few
time-critical parts), I am even more happy to have common base which is
likely to work everywhere.
I think that trying hard to push things into C compliance is very well
worth it, the result being compliant implementation where possible and
clear documentation of even slight divergencies for the rest.
Vaclav Hanzl
- [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, James A. Kinnard, 2005/05/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, Parthasaradhi Nayani, 2005/05/20
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, Parthasaradhi Nayani, 2005/05/21
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question,
hanzl <=
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, Joerg Wunsch, 2005/05/23
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, Daniel O'Connor, 2005/05/23
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, E. Weddington, 2005/05/23
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, Joerg Wunsch, 2005/05/23
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, Trampas, 2005/05/23
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, E. Weddington, 2005/05/23
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR-GCC question, Matthew MacClary, 2005/05/23