Hi Oliver, 2011/1/5 Oliver Seitz <[email protected]>: > > if the dwords procedure isn't called, it's not compiled.
That's true. But the print library core is a procedure capable of handling dwords. If you use two different decimal routines (e.g. byte and sword), this is efficient. If you use only one, the design is inefficient. As to my previous statement: the bottom line is jallib (like many libraries) aim to be universal and that comes at a price, which in most cases is code size. There is no point in just criticize code size. You one thinks code size (or stack usage) could be reduced without reducing functionality, please, please, show how. If you think it is worth while to create a cut-down version of a specific library, please do so. I agree library target code size tends to grow and this should be limited. Resource use in general is something that must be taken into account. It is just to easy to say 'buy a bigger chip'. And often resource use can be reduced. Some modifications on the lcd library (in response to remarks of Vasile, about a year ago) gave a significant reduction of two stack levels. I just think there is little point in using qualifications like 'huge' or 'rediculous' without getting specific on what you see and what can be done about it... 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.
