Before these changes C18/PIC18F encouraged the use of poor programming practices because using global variables in access ram was so much more efficient than passing arguments and using local variables. Bob Ammerman RAm Systems ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [PIC:] Extensions to the PIC18 instruction set > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ken Pergola wrote: > > > Would you mind sharing your thought on > > why this was the case? Do you think it was because C18 needs more > > improvement to better take advantage of the extended instructions or was it > > because your application did not lend itself very well to the extended > > instructions? > > I didn't study the code emitted by C18 to see if it was optimal, but > extended mode code was definitely smaller than using standard mode > when access RAM wasn't part of the picture. > > I'm sure it will depend on the application, but access RAM will always > provide a code size win, while the benefit of smaller stack code is > probably highly dependent on the application's use of function calls > and parameters. > > -- > John W. Temples, III > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList > mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads