| ??? 05/15/06 07:47 Read: times |
#116197 - Why does it need optimising? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I gather this piece of code only gets called once on startup and copies 26H bytes (38 bytes) so why would you want to 'optimise' it? Is execution time or code size an issue? I could understand optimising it if it was to copy a block of 8k into a flash chip or suchlike where a few cycles multiplied by 1000's would make a significant difference, but here?
Or is there something I'm missing? |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| interrupt table copy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| optimisation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yes i had that in mind but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No P2 worries | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks for making this clear! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| single chip solutions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Ofcourse | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why does it need optimising? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not necessarily! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| are you sure this is OK? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| THANKS! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| >256 byte long table | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I'll give it a go... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| worked! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re: >256 byte long table | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not quite this issue | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
issue resolved | 01/01/70 00:00 |