We can test your function and my (pseudo array). I do prefer pseudo array over function. The good thing about this method is that FAT32 may use the dual arrays, and the user can choose to either use dual arrays (for speed), or use the function since it is user friendly.
Sound good? Matt. On Oct 8, 3:09 pm, Oliver Seitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > This would slow things down, but give it a try. What OSC > > speed are you > > using? > > 32MHz > > My Idea was not to concatenate the two arrays like in large_array, first > array for the first half of the sector and the second array for the second > sector. I was storing all even bytes in the "_lo" array, all odd bytes in the > "_hi" array. > > Like this: > > function pata_hd_sector_buffer_a(word in address) return byte is > pragma inline > if (address && 1) == 0 then > return pata_hd_sector_buffer_lo[address / 2] > else > return pata_hd_sector_buffer_hi[address / 2] > end if > end function > > The call > > in_a=pata_hd_sector_buffer_a(counter) > > translates to 20 or 21 asm instructions, depending on lo or hi. Can't do real > speed test right now, but I would bet it's faster than large_array. > > Greets, > Kiste -- 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.
