Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Vitaliy wrote:
>> Gerhard... :-D  I don't know why you think I'm trying to insult you.
>> Nothing can be further from the truth. 
>> 
>> I hope you don't mind if I disagree with your implication that SMA
>> can replace DMA in all situations.
> 
> I'm not Gerhard, but I'm pretty sure he never said that.  I
> understood he was mostly pointing out the potential problems when the
> amount of dynamically allocated memory is close the amount available.

Exactly. Which have to do with a lack of predictability of memory usage,
when you're allocating and freeing during normal operation (as opposed
to only allocating during initialization and never freeing). 

Vitaliy, you never explained how you can make heap usage predictable. Of
course I don't mind if you disagree -- as I see it, this is your problem
not mine --, but thing is that as long as you just say "believe me"
without presenting any further explanation, I for one won't believe you
and take the lack of further explanation for an absence of good
arguments :)

My point is that there are some applications where the lack of
predictability is more, sometimes much more, important than any possible
gain in better program structure through using the heap during normal
operation. Sometimes to the point of prohibiting heap usage during
normal operation. And that when using the heap, one should be aware of
this. This may not apply to any of the applications you ever worked on,
but if it should be so, this doesn't mean that these applications don't
exist or even that they are rare.

Programming for your own product line has a number of distinct
advantages. Programming for other people's product lines has at least
one: you get to see a broad spectrum of applications, broader than any
single product line.

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