|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
RLScott
Joined: 10 Jul 2007 Posts: 465
|
Optimization High/Low byte |
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:59 am |
|
|
In the listing below, I am trying to get the most optimum 16F1824 code for the following function:
Code: | .................... unsigned int16 GetTimer1(void)
.................... {
.................... unsigned int k;
.................... unsigned int16 retGetTimer1;
.................... #byte gt_low=retGetTimer1
.................... #byte gt_high=retGetTimer1+1
....................
.................... k = TMR1H;
*
00BB: MOVF 17,W
00BC: MOVWF 37
.................... gt_low = TMR1L;
00BD: MOVF 16,W
00BE: MOVWF 38
.................... if(k != (gt_high=TMR1H)) //..high byte changed..
00BF: MOVF 17,W
00C0: MOVWF 39
00C1: SUBWF 37,W
00C2: BTFSC 03.2
00C3: GOTO 0C6
.................... gt_low = TMR1L; //..then re-read low byte
00C4: MOVF 16,W
00C5: MOVWF 38
.................... return retGetTimer1;
00C6: MOVF 38,W
00C7: MOVWF 78
00C8: MOVF 39,W
00C9: MOVWF 79 |
As you can see this is very optimum. But why was it necessary for me to resort to the #byte directives to get it? I was hoping to get the same sort of code from the following:
Code: | .................... unsigned int16 GetTimer1(void)
.................... {
.................... unsigned int8 k,m,n;
.................... k = TMR1H;
*
00BB: MOVF 17,W
00BC: MOVWF 37
.................... m = TMR1L;
00BD: MOVF 16,W
00BE: MOVWF 38
.................... //n = TMR1H;
.................... if(k != (n=TMR1H)) //..high byte changed..
00BF: MOVF 17,W
00C0: MOVWF 39
00C1: SUBWF 37,W
00C2: BTFSC 03.2
00C3: GOTO 0C6
.................... m = TMR1L; //..then re-read low byte
00C4: MOVF 16,W
00C5: MOVWF 38
.................... return ((unsigned int16)n<<8) + m;
00C6: CLRF 3B
00C7: MOVF 39,W
00C8: MOVWF 3A
00C9: MOVWF 3B
00CA: CLRF 3A
00CB: MOVF 38,W
00CC: ADDWF 3A,W
00CD: MOVWF 78
00CE: MOVLW 00
00CF: ADDWFC 3B,W
00D0: MOVWF 7A
00D1: MOVF 7A,W
00D2: MOVWF 79 |
As you can see, it is nowhere near as good as the first implementation. Is there some way I can coax the optimization of the first listing from an implementation that did not resort to such compiler-dependent constructs as #byte and and assumed endian order? (My build options are set for maximum optimization.) _________________ Robert Scott
Real-Time Specialties
Embedded Systems Consulting |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003 Posts: 21708
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:07 pm |
|
|
You can use make16() to do it efficiently:
Code: |
.................... return(make16(n,m));
000E: MOVF n,W
000F: MOVWF @7A
0010: MOVF m,W
0011: MOVWF @78
0012: MOVF n,W
0013: MOVWF @79
|
Code: |
#include <16F1824.H>
#fuses XT, NOWDT, NOPROTECT, BROWNOUT, PUT //, NOLVP
#use delay(clock=4000000)
#byte TMR1H = 0x17
#byte TMR1L = 0x16
unsigned int16 GetTimer1(void)
{
unsigned int8 k,m,n;
k = TMR1H;
m = TMR1L;
//n = TMR1H;
if(k != (n=TMR1H)) //..high byte changed..
m = TMR1L; //..then re-read low byte
return(make16(n,m));
}
//==========================================
void main()
{
int16 result;
result = GetTimer1();
while(1);
} |
|
|
|
RLScott
Joined: 10 Jul 2007 Posts: 465
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:45 pm |
|
|
PCM programmer wrote: | You can use make16() to do it efficiently:
|
Thanks. That is neater than my solution. _________________ Robert Scott
Real-Time Specialties
Embedded Systems Consulting |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|