| ??? 03/01/10 18:16 Read: times |
#173693 - Maybe Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Neil said:
I think it's rather unlikely that a manually-coded 'C' for loop is going to be much (if any) better than the compiler's own library function? Maarten Brock said:
I would not be surprised if it does result in smaller code at all, because the library function must deal with generic pointers where the manual loop knows about the whereabouts of these arrays. Yes, that could be true. On the other hand, the compiler might be smart enough to analyse the code, and pick the appropriate implementation for the specific pointer types in use... I have no idea if Keil actually does that - but that's the kind of thing that you'd hope to be getting for the $$$ price tag...! Furthermore there's always function call overhead unless the library code gets inlined. Yes. Again, I have no idea if Keil actually does the inlining. Only when the function is called at multiple places would I expect a code size decrease. Indeed. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Question about KEIL | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It ain't how i would do it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thank you! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| using strncmp for a password check is a bug :^) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yeah whatever | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Interesting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Eh?? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
40 instead of 50000000 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nothing to do with Keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hmmm I see | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Problem solved! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Do you undrestand why it did not work? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Wrong | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, it's wrong - but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| code size decrease | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| After a nights sleep | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Where it gets specific to Keil (or whatever) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Explain | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Woops. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| such a 'newb' error (sic) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Password application | 01/01/70 00:00 |