> Why not have a format_asm library? > This breaks the rule of Jallib to > keep it all JAL code, but it is clear that it is asm.
Hmmm... So keep the "clean" version for explanatory and educational purposes, and add another one that generates optimized output. I do not object, and I'm comfortable with having readable code along with optimized code. The only question I would like to ask, which one is the "main" or "standard" version? Should there be format.jal and format_asm.jal, or format.jal and format_clean.jal? Is the main goal of jallib to generate the best output or the best readability? My feeling is that an "end user" of a library expects fast and reliable execution and low overhead. He would not care if the lines that generated the hex file were human readable or not. As soon as the hex file is programmed to the PIC, what benefit would one have from a readable source code? 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.
