I see, do we have numbers though? Isn't the spi I/O actually the slowest part?
William On May 11, 7:53 am, Oliver Seitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > You might want to consider a compromise -- don't unroll the > > entire > > loop. Try unrolling 8 bytes. You may find it is > > nearly as fast yet > > save a bunch of code space. > > I'm not so sure - the speed is greatly increased because each field in the > array is adressed by a _constant_ subscript. The loop version is not slow > because of it's a loop. Loops are quite efficient in JAL. What takes quite > some time is storing the values to the array using a _variable_ subscript. > > 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.
