From: troy silvey (tbsilvey_at_juno.com)
Date: 2001-02-23 22:56:48
>The 8K number for scanf is just an estimate for a first version >written completely in C. It's based on the fact that scanf is even more >complex than printf. But it's an estimate and it may be wrong. It may also be >possible to get lower numbers by size optimizations or a rewrite in assembler, but >I won't do that for the first version. It is usually easier to rewrite >existing C code in assembler, than to write it in assembler from scratch. I appreciate the effort. For now I am happy to use getchar and I am happy with the executable size. If it's possible to add scanf at a small price in size that would be nice. But since we are coding for native systems like the C64 that only have about 40k immediatly available (more with tweeking) I think you made the right choice going with the smaller choices. I think for curiosity I will try to rewrite my code using putchar instead of printf and see how that effects the size and speed. troy ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2001-12-14 22:05:39 CET