Sean Breheny wrote:
> Just beware that you need a data type which is large enough to store
> x^2 to do this. You might be better doing c*x first and then
> multiplying by x again. That minimizes the range of values which your
> variables need to store.
>
> Sean
>
>   

Yes. Luckily, my x is a 16 bit unsigned integer, so x^2 always fits in a 
32 bit space.
I hadn't considered the benefits of working out c*x*x in that sequence 
however.

Matt


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist