Hi all,
I like the rewrite. It looks good. My only concern is possibly code
size. I haven't tested it, but it looks as though
__eeprom_write_byte_address_word should generate about 10
instructions, which means __eeprom_write_dword_address_word will
generate 40 instructions, or 80 bytes. It seems
-Original Message-
From: Shaun Jackman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:45 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: Wouter van Gulik; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org; Joerg Wunsch
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h
Hi all,
I like the rewrite. It looks
Hello Eric,
I agree: correct code first, optimization second. I am not complaining
that eeprom_write_dword is an 80 byte function. I agree that
reading/writing a 32-bit word will take a bunch of code on an AVR. I
am arguing that it is a design flaw that eeprom_write_dword takes 80
bytes *per
On Feb 28, 2008, at 6:53 AM, Weddington, Eric wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Shaun Jackman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:45 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: Wouter van Gulik; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org; Joerg Wunsch
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New
The solution you're recommending is possible, and in fact probably the
only solution with the current architecture. The only catch is that it
requires one device-specific function for each location of the EEPROM
registers. How many EEPROM register locations are there across the AVR
product line?
On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Shaun Jackman wrote:
The solution you're recommending is possible, and in fact probably the
only solution with the current architecture. The only catch is that it
requires one device-specific function for each location of the EEPROM
registers. How many EEPROM
Well, your suggestion would solve the code size issue, but the
function wouldn't be particularly fast if all the EEPROM register
accesses were indirectly addressed. In most applications, EEPROM
writes aren't usually time critical; although I can imagine that
exceptions exist.
Do the EEPROM
On Feb 28, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Dmitry K. wrote:
Hi all.
I like the rewrite. It looks good. My only concern is not
only code size. There is a second question: this functions
are not a normal C functions. That is:
. No argument type control at compile time. For expamle,
the expressions like
