---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A53C7562008E; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:49:16 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <15.00CC53C0@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:46:07 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 4488 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:46:01 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 8176; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:45:14 -0500 Received: from wapgw.hccnet.nl [62.251.0.19] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with SMTP ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:45:13 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by wapgw.hccnet.nl Received: from smtp.hccnet.nl by wapgw.hccnet.nl via smtp.hccnet.nl [62.251.0.13] with ESMTP for id i0UJjAPY013148 (8.12.10/1.200); Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:45:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from hccnet.nl by smtp.hccnet.nl via fia65-64-100.dsl.hccnet.nl [80.100.64.65] with ESMTP for id i0UJeCjw008219 (8.12.10/2.03); Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:40:15 +0100 (MET) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr, nl, de-de MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <401AB31C.5060806@hccnet.nl> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:40:12 +0100 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Rob Hamerling Subject: Re: [PIC]: Hitech PICCLITE state machine optimization To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856559 Herbert Graf wrote: >>You did not mention any requirements (timing, memory space, etc). If >>there are no such requirements and the code works as expected, then you >>are done, and optimisation is a waste of time. > > > Umm, it was pretty obvious (at least to most others here) I was concerned > about the number of words a simple line like what is above generates. Probably not a coincidence. For assembler people it seems a way of life to try making a program smaller and/or faster than _needed_ (I have done a lot of assembler programming myself - not with PICs - and had the same habit). The point I tried to make is that if a program doesn't need to be made smaller then every effort to make it smaller is unproductive. Who wants to pay for wasted time? Regards, Rob. -- Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL phone +31-347-322822 homepage: http://www.robh.nl/ -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body .