Re: Lint for microcontrollers

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:03:50 -0700, Alan Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:25:55 -0500, Jim McGinnis
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:22:37 -0700, Alan Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:24:48 -0500, Jim McGinnis
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>programming for the TI 34010, which was a bit addressable graphics
>>>>processor, and for which sizeof(char) was 8, not 1. 
>>>
>>>By definition, sizeof(char) is 1. CHAR_BIT could be 64, however.
>>
>>You are correct regarding what the standard says, but my point was
>>that PC-Lint lets you do static checking even for compilers which
>>_don't_ comply with the standard, as was the case for the TI compiler.
>
>Interesting processor. I dug for some info, since I wasn't familiar
>with it (though I remembered the associated graphic mode.) I suppose
>all C bets are off, since it was developed before the standard.
>Apparently they decided that sizeof would return the number of
>addressable units in an object, and the 34010 was bit addressable.
>Someone has done a gcc code generator for it, but I don't know how it
>reports sizeof(char).

The 340x0 compiler that was sold by TI, and written by LPI (Language
Processors Inc??), was actually a very nice one, putting aside certain
oddities due to the target chips. For a brief time before the PCI bus
came out, the highest performance graphic boards for PCs used the TIGA
standard, which defined a powerful and elegant interface between the
PC processor and a 34010/20 on the graphics board. Some of TI's OMAP
architecture is reminiscent of the TIGA approach,

340x0 processors were popular in embedded (non-PC) applications
because of they were well documented (unlike most graphics chipsets),
had good tool support and could be purchased in moderate quantities.