Hi Rob, Okay, I sent it to you. I'm still trying to understand why the "inline"s are there, though. Most of the other libraries don't have them. I would say there needs to be a reason to have them, not a reason to remove them.
Regards, Mike On Saturday, December 29, 2012 3:25:18 PM UTC-5, RobH wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > On 29-12-12 18:03, Mike K wrote: > > > And isn't this the point to having a library?...to have blocks of code > > that get called over and over without taking up additional space? Seems > > odd to me to have blocks of code that get repeated, especially since > > they aren't time sensitive. > > Depends! True when the expanded code of an inline block is larger than > of call/return + parameter passing. Parameter passing is different for > constants and variables, so inline can be fine in one situation but not > in another. > > > > .. the code and data memory used is smallest with no "inline"s: > > > > regular compile, with inlines: 866 program, 36 data > > regular compile, w/o inlines: 483 program, 35 data > > compile no-reuse, with inlines: 873 program, 88 data > > compile no-reuse, w/oinlines: 483 program, 43 data > > > > I favor removing the "inline"s. > > The difference is much bigger than I expected! Would you mind to send > me your program (by personal mail) for analysis? > > Regards, Rob. > > -- > R. Hamerling, Netherlands --- http://www.robh.nl > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jallib/-/o3eCbESCoIIJ. 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.
