Hi All, 2010/2/19 Rob Hamerling <[email protected]>: > I agree 100% that in general we should discuss all Jallib related business > here! And I second that!
> I don't think it is useful to discuss all the 'annoying' > details publicly. This applies to the memory issue too: the purspose was to explore the very specific issue at hand and the options available. With comment #2, we can discuss the solution. And about case 5... IMO a warning is not enough. The use of large math in small programs will work okay, but larger programs fail silently in some cases. In other words: instable behavior. I suggest that, in addition to the warning, we remove the definition of _pic_accum for 16f73/74. This way programs that use large math won't compile and guarantee stable behavior. This is of course at a cost: small programs could have used large math, but can't now. But this is cheap compared to the hassle of instable code. Joep -- 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.
