This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Disappointing optimisation...

Hi,

I'm doing a comparison between BL51 and Lx51 to determine the code space savings- I'm a bit suprised to see that for the same project, Lx51 yields a code reduction of only 0.6%- I've enabled the AJMP/ACALL setting, and altered the optimisation levels (speaking of which, under Lx51 raising the optimsation levels from 9 to the 'new' levels of 10/11 actually increases the code size)

Does anyone have any similar experience of this phenomena- or any suggestion as to what else I should try to get the touted 10-15% reductions available using LX51?

I'm only using the 'BANKAREA' LX51 controls...

Thanks

David

Parents
  • "Now, elaborating on this, when you let some "optimizer" increase subroutine nesting at will, where is the "design calculation of stack depth against worst case confluence", you can only perform a worthless test."

    Ok, so what you're really saying is that you shouldn't use high levels of optimisation because you can't guarantee the 'untestable' aspects of the program will be ok by using good design practices?

Reply
  • "Now, elaborating on this, when you let some "optimizer" increase subroutine nesting at will, where is the "design calculation of stack depth against worst case confluence", you can only perform a worthless test."

    Ok, so what you're really saying is that you shouldn't use high levels of optimisation because you can't guarantee the 'untestable' aspects of the program will be ok by using good design practices?

Children