| ??? 05/30/02 21:52 Read: times |
#23670 - RE: Performance Analyser in keil |
"Would this make a big difference for 18 counts for loop?"
That depends on what you do inside the loop! Obviously, if there is a lot of code inside the loop, the overhead of managing the loop counter will not be very significant; On the other hand, if there is very little code within the loop, the overhead could be very significant! That's why it can be quicker to simply repeat the code in-line, rather than use a loop (known as "Loop Unwinding") - but obviously at the cost of bigger code size. As ever, it's a trade-off, and only you can determine the optimum compromise within the constraints & requirements of your particular application. "I guess I have to try it and see the generated code." Absolutely! "The problem is I dont know 8051 assembly yet." If you really need to be looking this closely at the timing of the code, then you really need to learn it! |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Performance Analyser in keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance Analyser in keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance Analyser in keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance Analyser in keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance Analyser in keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance improvement | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance improvement | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance improvement | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance improvement | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: To Andy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance Analyser in keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Performance Analyser in keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: To Andy | 01/01/70 00:00 |



