- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,161
- Reaction score
- 571
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 35
- Website
- normmatt.com
- XP
- 2,405
- Country

z.g said:i dont' know. you can try implement, why not?Normmatt said:Because that code is worse than mine. It has too do more reading and has to look the addreses up in a lookup table, it shouldn't be in a loop anyway the loop is small enough to unbundle which gives a nice optimisation and mine takes up less space than your new code and thus produces faster code.really?
result of your code:
mine:Code:ÂÂÂÂldrÂÂÂÂr1, .L3 ÂÂÂÂldrÂÂÂÂr3, .L3+4 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3] ÂÂÂÂaddÂÂÂÂr3, r3, #108 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3] ÂÂÂÂaddÂÂÂÂr3, r3, #16 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3] ÂÂÂÂaddÂÂÂÂr3, r3, #16 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3] ÂÂÂÂldrÂÂÂÂr2, .L3+8 ÂÂÂÂaddÂÂÂÂr3, r3, #8 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3] ÂÂÂÂaddÂÂÂÂr3, r3, #8 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr2, [r3] ÂÂÂÂaddÂÂÂÂr3, r3, #28 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3] ÂÂÂÂbxÂÂÂÂlr .L4: ÂÂÂÂ.alignÂÂÂÂ2 .L3: ÂÂÂÂ.wordÂÂÂÂ-509607936 ÂÂÂÂ.wordÂÂÂÂ37270936 ÂÂÂÂ.wordÂÂÂÂ-476053504
Code:ÂÂÂÂldrÂÂÂÂr3, .L7 ÂÂÂÂldrÂÂÂÂr1, .L7+4 ÂÂÂÂmovÂÂÂÂr2, r3 ÂÂÂÂaddÂÂÂÂr2, r2, #140 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3] ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3, #108] ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3, #124] ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r2] ÂÂÂÂaddÂÂÂÂr2, r2, #8 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r2] ÂÂÂÂaddÂÂÂÂr3, r3, #184 ÂÂÂÂldrÂÂÂÂr2, .L7+8 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr1, [r3] ÂÂÂÂsubÂÂÂÂr3, r3, #28 ÂÂÂÂstrÂÂÂÂr2, [r3] ÂÂÂÂbxÂÂÂÂlr .L8: ÂÂÂÂ.alignÂÂÂÂ2 .L7: ÂÂÂÂ.wordÂÂÂÂ37270936 ÂÂÂÂ.wordÂÂÂÂ-509607936 ÂÂÂÂ.wordÂÂÂÂ-476053504
QUOTEBy the way whats the main problem with adding NAND support? that ECC crap?
Hmm I never bothered to go and disassemble the results.
My question about the NAND was if you had any particular reason too do it for the SD and not the NAND (NAND would be best as you wouldn't have any speed issues??)?






