I Joep
I thought I replied this messages yesterday, but I can't find my reply,
so better repeat what (I thought) I wrote and answer your second msg.
Joep Suijs wrote:
I looked into the stack use of the lcd libraries and noticed that IO
pin operations in the (16f877a) device file are inline
>...
However, when you address a nibble, it is not
> ...
This is responsible for use of one stack level and adding inline to
the put-procedure not only removes one stack level, but also makes the
sample at hand smaller.
Is there a particular reason why the nibble port procedures are not
inline? Would it be a good idea to change this?
I could not find in my notes a reason why the nibble-handlings are not
inline. But as far as I remember there were 2 reasons: memory occupation
and an issue with inline. I think the inline issue is solved. The
memory occupation is a trade off between the amount of inline code of
the procedure/function and the code for call/return when the procedures
are not inline (and the number of invocations). When the trade of is in
favour of inline or the difference is very small than it seems obvious
to choose for inline. The bonus is one stack level.
Do we need more proof that inline is better (before I change the device
files)?
Regards, Rob.
--
Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
