Hi! On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:02:22AM +0100, Oliver Schmidt wrote: > Is from your perspective the overhead caused be the wrapper to high or > is the called C code too slow? Anyway on the Apple2 the overhead > caused by the firmware plus OS is already quite high. Compared to that > the overhead of the wrapper is rather low... The overhead and the resulting interrupt latency is too high for many tasks. On the C64, for example, the interrupt is often used to manipulate the VIC chip while it is drawing on the screen. This needs a very exact timing. > Anyway, I'm not into a discussion on this topic. If there's no > momentum then I'll just do it locally for my current task. To shorten the discussion: Just do it. I had some reasons for not adding such a module, but I'm not the holder of the one and only truth. Once there is such a function, we will see if my reasons had been valid:-) Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Wed Jan 18 13:29:40 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-01-18 13:29:44 CET