[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[avr-gcc-list] meta: separate or combined postings for loosely related s

From: Wolfgang Hospital
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] meta: separate or combined postings for loosely related subjects?
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 06:32:48 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0

(no British English spelling checker active - yet) On one Q&A platform one question sparked my interest in coding multiplication for AVR, and some of the results (especially retiring two multiplier bits instead of one at very little additional cost) have looked like GCC for AVR should profit from it(in part for Atmel Studio still including a libgcc predating gjl's 2012/08/24 rewrites)(<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29812009/faster-16bit-multiplication-algorithm-for-8-bit-mcu>). With my mind still not made up about how to contribute (dumping it to bug tracking being the timid&lazy option), let me start with a meta² question: Do you prefer each of a few subjectsbrought up by the same occasion(like discriminate "optimise time" by expected vs. worst case; implementation of symmetrical operation with decided asymmetry in cycle count between operands; code generation for multiplication by constants for 2 vs. 3 address architectures (and weird intermediates like the AVRs); choosing between not totally ordered implementations, testing multiplication; avr.md vs. -fixed; multilibs) in a separate posting, or should they be kept together, if at the risks of postings as long-winded as this question?



Wolfgang Hospital

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]