[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance
From: |
Weddington, Eric |
Subject: |
RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:24:38 -0700 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Vincent Trouilliez
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:20 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance
>
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:09:13 -0700
> "Weddington, Eric" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > So in application code I tend to avoid switch statements
> for embedded systems, unless I'm writing throw-away code or
> the application is trivial.
>
> Oh no ! ;-)
> I have only recently got round to using switch statements, to improve
> code legibility. In my current/first embedded project, I
> happen to have
> a very long (25 cases, 160 lines long) switch statement.. I dread to
> think what it would like if I had to replace it (what else
> with ?) with
> nested if's !
> How readable would that be... not to mention that with indentation, 25
> levels of nesting would mean the last case would be 3 meters
> on the far
> right... ;-)
>
> Any coding tips to make all this look about readable by human
> beings ?! ;-/
You wouldn't need *nested* ifs, but an if-else-if structure, or better yet, a
table of function pointers, also known as a dispatch table. Each method depends
on the type of data that you're switching on.
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, (continued)
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Weddington, Eric, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Weddington, Eric, 2009/02/28
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, David Brown, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, David Brown, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Bob Paddock, 2009/02/28
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Weddington, Eric, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Vincent Trouilliez, 2009/02/28
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance,
Weddington, Eric <=
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Vincent Trouilliez, 2009/02/28
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Weddington, Eric, 2009/02/28