Difference between revisions of "Talk:83Plus:BCALLs:4009"
From WikiTI
(usefulness) |
({{unsigned}}) |
||
| 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) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:08, 28 March 2006
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. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.13.172.118 (talk • contribs) 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 :) --Dan Englender 14:18, 27 March 2006 (PST)
