In GCC, it's legal to have an array of gotos, so this should work... and save a
lot of space (and execution too, I would think)
void *jumptable[]={ &&label0, &&label1, &&label31};
goto *jumptable[TWSR>>3];
label0:
//code for state 0
return;
label1:
//code for state 1
return;
label31:
//code for state31
return;
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:49:35 +0100
Vincent Trouilliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 17:17 +0100, David Bourgeois wrote:
> > I have a TWI interrupt routine inspired from the proycon avrlib and which
> > handles multi-master transmissions in an atmega48.
> > It's basically a sequence of cases for every value of the twi status.
> >
> > Right now, my twi code is 780 bytes long but 292 are for the SWITCH alone,
> > while only 266 are for what I'm actually doing in the cases.
> >
> > Is there a better way to write this? I've been told that a if/else if
> > sequence could be more efficient but can't really understand why. I guess
> > this also depends on the compiler. What about AVR-GCC in such a case?
> > And even if I have to write all this ISR in assembler, could I be able to
> > reduce this code significantly?
>
>
> If you are willing to write assembly, then there is room for significant
> improvement I think:
>
>
> PUSH TWI_STATUS_REG
> RETURN
>
> Two instructions, hard to beat ;-)
> That was for an Intel 8051 but surely it can be adapted for an AVR ???
>
> In the 8051 the I2C status register's lower 3 bits are unused, if in the
> above code, so you have 8 bytes to deal with each status case.
>
> Basically it's a look-up table with the status byte as the index. Stated
> like this, you can now translate it into C statements: write separate
> functions for all the various cases, put there address in a table of
> pointers, and use the TWI status byte as the table index to retrieve the
> matching function pointer, then jump to the required function. Done.
> Obviously, the more cases you have to process, the more
> efficient/interesting the look-up table becomes. Doing it for only two
> cases would be a tad overkill ;-P
>
> Sounds complex but it should still occupy much less than 292 I would
> think !!
>
>
> HTH,
>
>
> --
> Vince
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AVR-GCC-list mailing list
> AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
>
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
