Re: [avr-libc-dev] I just noticed OPTIMIZE_SPEED

2016-12-08 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
On 06.12.2016 23:59, Joerg Wunsch wrote: As George Spelvin wrote: Perhaps the two different reduction-mod-5 schemes should depend on OPTIMIZE_SPEED? Doesn't really matter much. Since the library is pre-compiled, you cannot map it to the user's -Ox compiler option anyway. As Johann already e

Re: [avr-libc-dev] I just noticed OPTIMIZE_SPEED

2016-12-07 Thread Joerg Wunsch
As George Spelvin wrote: > Er... AFAICT, that option has nothing to do with -O compiler > flags, but is set as part of library compilation. I know. I've never really been happy with that, but it's been in use for so long, so it won't be changed. -- cheers, Joerg .-.-. --... ...

Re: [avr-libc-dev] I just noticed OPTIMIZE_SPEED

2016-12-06 Thread George Spelvin
>> Perhaps the two different reduction-mod-5 schemes should depend on >> OPTIMIZE_SPEED? > Doesn't really matter much. Since the library is pre-compiled, you > cannot map it to the user's -Ox compiler option anyway. Er... AFAICT, that option has nothing to do with -O compiler flags, but is set a

Re: [avr-libc-dev] I just noticed OPTIMIZE_SPEED

2016-12-06 Thread Joerg Wunsch
As George Spelvin wrote: > Perhaps the two different reduction-mod-5 schemes should depend on > OPTIMIZE_SPEED? Doesn't really matter much. Since the library is pre-compiled, you cannot map it to the user's -Ox compiler option anyway. As Johann already explained, most AVR users care for saved f

[avr-libc-dev] I just noticed OPTIMIZE_SPEED

2016-12-06 Thread George Spelvin
Perhaps the two different reduction-mod-5 schemes should depend on OPTIMIZE_SPEED? Speaking of optimization, there are a significant number of places in libc/string (and libx/pmstring) where adding one instruction could save one cycle per byte. Most of the loops end with subilen_lo,