As Steve Franks wrote: > Is this really just for the convinienece of using F_CPU? I grabbed > delay_loop_2(), put it in a for() loop, and my code went from 4k to > 1k...
After all, the convenience of using F_CPU and times in microseconds and milliseconds is *the* difference between _delay_us and _delay_ms, vs. just using _delay_loop_1 and _delay_loop_2 directly. The latter have been there well before, and the functionality to specify the delay in a more natural (to humans) way once used to be a frequently requested item. Btw., _delay_ms now falls back to a wrapped outer/inner loop approach iff the delay gets too large, since there have obviously been too many people trying to call _delay_ms(500) or such. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
