Talk:83Plus:BCALLs:4009 - Revision history

AndyJ: {{unsigned}}

2006-03-29T01:08:58Z

Dan Englender: usefulness

2006-03-27T22:18:57Z

usefulness

24.13.172.118 at 08:39, 27 March 2005

2005-03-27T08:39:52Z

New page

Is this really a "useful utility call"? There's a huge overhead for merely using a bcall, just for a routine that would be 4 bytes when inlined instead of 3 bytes when bcalled.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 29 March 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Is this really a "useful utility call"? There's a huge overhead for merely using a bcall, just for a routine that would be 4 bytes when inlined instead of 3 bytes when bcalled.	+	Is this really a "useful utility call"? There's a huge overhead for merely using a bcall, just for a routine that would be 4 bytes when inlined instead of 3 bytes when bcalled. {{unsigned\|24.13.172.118\|04:39, 27 March 2005}}
	: The only overhead is some clock cycles. If you care about space and not about speed then yes, it's a useful utility call. It's all a matter of priorities :) --[[User:Dan Englender\|Dan Englender]] 14:18, 27 March 2006 (PST)		: The only overhead is some clock cycles. If you care about space and not about speed then yes, it's a useful utility call. It's all a matter of priorities :) --[[User:Dan Englender\|Dan Englender]] 14:18, 27 March 2006 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 27 March 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Is this really a "useful utility call"? There's a huge overhead for merely using a bcall, just for a routine that would be 4 bytes when inlined instead of 3 bytes when bcalled.		Is this really a "useful utility call"? There's a huge overhead for merely using a bcall, just for a routine that would be 4 bytes when inlined instead of 3 bytes when bcalled.
		+	: The only overhead is some clock cycles. If you care about space and not about speed then yes, it's a useful utility call. It's all a matter of priorities :) --[[User:Dan Englender\|Dan Englender]] 14:18, 27 March 2006 (PST)