reset vector on a 68hc11

[Pat Ford]

Previously, you (Roger Heflin) wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 dhardin at ovec.com wrote:
> 
> > yea I agree the C code would be much more friendly to tune.  I really don't
> > understand why it wasn't done that way in the first place at GM.     doug
> > 
> 
> Because if straight assembly just barely fits in the address space you
> have and just barely runs fast enough, then the C is not going to cut
> it. 

 I think it was due to a lack of good compilers, I've done alot of X86
assembly and C (thats what I do at work) wiht the right compiler and 
optimizations C can go almost as small as handwritten asm. This could 
be the start of a holy war. 

> This is why in general assembly is used.  The address space
> on mine is pretty much used, they have maybe 6k more they could use,
> but they have basically 24k of code, and with C you would have more
> expansion than that.   Now it sounds like the newer computers (96+?)
> have quite a bit more address space, so then they could use a compiler
> and not run into problems.
> 
> 			Roger
> 

--
Pat Ford                           email: pford at qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd.           WWW: http://www.qnx.com
(613) 591-0931      (voice)         mail: 175 Terrence Matthews          
(613) 591-3579      (fax)                 Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8