---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A06610AF00D8; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:01:42 -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 <19.00CC5865@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:01:28 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 8809 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:01:21 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 5173; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:59:47 -0500 Received: from tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.4] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with SMTP ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:59:46 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net Received: from amd1200 ([64.231.209.178]) by tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with SMTP id <20040130235949.GHVG28348.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net@amd1200> for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:59:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:59:54 -0500 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Herbert Graf Subject: Re: [PIC]: Hitech PICCLITE state machine optimization To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <401AB31C.5060806@hccnet.nl> Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856609 > > 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? I don't want it smaller "for fun", I'm running out of code space (as usual) have many more features I want to add. Thanks, TTYL ---------------------------------- Herbert's PIC Stuff: http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/ -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body .