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
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 .-.-. --... ...
>> 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
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
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,