ok, that sounds good. I'm sure your aware, the library is based on unused variables being removed, and IF statements with constants on both sides being simplified by the compiler to saves space.
As a check when your done, compile a working sample with the original library and check the space used, then compile again with your changes. the space used should be the same. I remember it was an interesting library to write with all those lines copied over and over. Be careful not to make any mistakes. I had some method so I could do it with less chance of error. Matt. On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 1:46:00 PM UTC-5, Rob Jansen wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > I noticed the library has already almost 900 lines of code. If I add the > other part it becomes more than 2000 lines of code which make maintenance > more difficult. > > So I have the following proposal: > 1) I rename large_array_1 to large_array_1_PIC16 > 2) I create a new library large_array_1_PIC14H > 3) I create a new library called large_array_1 that includes one of the > two other files based on the target cpu. > > OK? > > Kind regards, > > Rob > > > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:45:55 AM UTC+1, Matthew Schinkel wrote: >> >> Hi Rob, I'm ok with you updating the library. I like your first option: >> 1) I check for the core type and make a separate part for those types of >> cores using arrays of 64 bytes. >> >> Matt. >> >> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 4:58:58 PM UTC-5, Rob Jansen wrote: >>> >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> I need a large array for one of my applications and ran into the large >>> array library which does exactly what I need. I am using a PIC16F1976 and I >>> constantly ran out of data memory, even when defining an array of 200 bytes. >>> >>> I had a look at the source code and I expect that this is caused by the >>> fact that you define smaller arrays of 256 bytes but the PIC16F1976 does >>> not have banks of that size but banks of at most 80 bytes. >>> >>> Should I make a new large array library or should I try to adapt the >>> current libraries so that they also work for chips that have banks of 80 >>> bytes, so arrays of 64 bytes would be the easiest to work with. >>> >>> If I add it to the existing libraries there are various options: >>> 1) I check for the core type and make a separate part for those types of >>> cores using arrays of 64 bytes. >>> 2) Rewrite the library so that it is based on arrays of 64 bytes instead >>> of 256 bytes and add more arrays to make it fit the original size. >>> >>> Any suggestions? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/jallib. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
