Hi all
I noticed a big codesize difference when using the log function:
without log -- with log
winAVR20070525 2958 4152
winAVR20071221 2940 5744
using math lib. Also in case of without log fp is used
opt = s
Dig
___
Anton Erasmus wrote:
On 15 Jan 2008 at 20:05, Weddington, Eric wrote:
snip
I have not seen the eeprom.h file, so my comments might be totally inapropriate.
Wouldn't it be better to use static inline functions in stead of macros ? One
gets
the same advantages of macros, but without many of
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
org] On Behalf Of David Brown
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:57 AM
To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h
In general, I agree with you - static inline functions are
Weddington, Eric wrote:
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
org] On Behalf Of David Brown
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:57 AM
To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h
In general, I agree with you - static
On January 16, 2008 12:56:39 am Joerg Wunsch wrote:
As Andrew S wrote:
Investigating this further, I found that the following corresponded
with the microcontroller running the correct interrupt handler for
the interrupt in question:
ISR(_VECTOR(8))
{ .. }
That would be
-Original Message-
From: Michael Hennebry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:24 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: David Brown; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
Subject: RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Weddington, Eric wrote:
- One
Update of task #5090 (project avr-libc):
Percent Complete: 90% = 100%
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Follow-up Comment #6:
The binutils patch
Hi All,
We've had a task in the list to make avr-libc -mint8 compatible:
https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?3622
Is this still desired?
For my part, I would rather kill this task, and spend time on making GCC
optimal for the AVR target, even if it takes more time in the long run.
Thoughts?
As Weddington, Eric wrote:
We've had a task in the list to make avr-libc -mint8 compatible:
https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?3622
Is this still desired?
There are obviously no takers for it anyway.
--
cheers, Jorg .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL
Weddington, Eric wrote:
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
org] On Behalf Of David Brown
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:01 AM
To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h
Weddington, Eric wrote:
No, no - I
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
org] On Behalf Of David Brown
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:34 PM
To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h
Weddington, Eric wrote:
-Original
Or inline functions defined in a header file.
Rick Altherr
He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I
split it with him.
On Jan 16, 2008, at 9:41 AM, Weddington, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Rick Altherr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:41 PM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: David Brown; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h
Or inline functions defined in a header file.
Sheesh. You
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 17:57, Dig Kleppe wrote:
Hi all
I noticed a big codesize difference when using the log function:
without log -- with log
winAVR20070525 2958 4152
winAVR20071221 2940 5744
using math lib. Also in case of without log fp is used
opt = s
Hi,
I'd test it, but my ski vacation didn't include an electronics test
bench. :-)
Rick Altherr
He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I
split it with him.
On Jan 16, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Weddington, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-Original
15 matches
Mail list logo
