Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: Programming Languages
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 16:54:44 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <14qaij9n9tjnr6gc1lfu4o69hb68gtcguf@4ax.com>
References: <vg3575$3bio0$1@dont-email.me> <vg383n$3c25s$1@dont-email.me> <vg3m01$3e15j$2@dont-email.me> <vg3mnf$3egtc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 00:52:40 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2ec3536565cad72a850a63ff8010b7a5";
	logging-data="3642030"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zejKyoYS3VwtVJYfr7zSU"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vhKLR1uztX6suB4+cJk3jqMCIsw=
Bytes: 1949

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:03:00 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

>On 11/1/2024 3:50 PM, Nick Hayward wrote:
>> What about C++?
>
>C++ is an order of magnitude more complex than C.  Even a
>casual C programmer can imagine what his code will look
>like after compilation.  I.e., can imagine exactly what the
>CPU will be doing (ignoring the fact that the compiler will
>often out-think the coder in terms of time/space efficiency).

We want to time the execution of a control algorithm. One way to time
it is to run it in a loop maybe 100K times and measure that with a
stopwatch. But a very smart compiler might run it once, notice that
nothing has changed, and skip the reruns.

It's best to bang a port pin and measure it with an oscilloscope.

We've had FPGA compilers do that sort of thing, optimize out
intentional delays. One fix is to XOR signals with a level from a pin
that *we* know is always low.