| ??? 12/27/09 08:07 Read: times |
#171936 - Maybe not so bad Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
the '51 hardware architecture makes the impmementation of linked lists on a '51 extremely cumbersome and thus very costly in memory usage and processing speed. Thus on a '51 I would use an array instead. That may be overstating it somewhat. It really depends ow what advantage a linked-list actually brings over other approaches (eg an array); it is possible that the advantages might outweigh the costs - especially if speed and/or code size are not key constraints for you. As Per said, it all depends on what you are actually trying to achieve... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Linked List in 80C51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What problem are you trying to solve? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| possible? it's standard C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| possible? it's standard C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe not so bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hybrid? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It works | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No pointers? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes the Index | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pointer vs Index? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Anyone sorting? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not only time is a problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Knuth? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Who is Tenebaum? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How to cite references | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, references are important | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Data Structures Using C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dynamic memory allocation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This is done in programming class | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| since the name has many meanings ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Probably more general than that... | 01/01/70 00:00 |