Re: [avr-libc-dev] [untested PATCH] Save 11 instructions in vfprintf_flt.o

2016-12-08 Thread George Spelvin
>> + * Unlike "if (src & smask) dst |= dmask", which is also two instructions > This is confusing because the BST + BLD code below is not a replacement > for what the C code is indicating. For example the C code never clears > the bit as opposed to BLD. >> + * and two cycles, this overwrites the

Re: [avr-libc-dev] [untested PATCH] Save 11 instructions in vfprintf_flt.o

2016-12-08 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
George Spelvin schrieb: As part of poking around vfprintf.c, I came across this low-hanging fruit. I'm waiting to test all of my printf changes together, but I thought I'd throw it out for comment early. I presume this sort of thing is okay? Basically, by reversing the sense of the FL_FLTUPP f

[avr-libc-dev] [untested PATCH] Save 11 instructions in vfprintf_flt.o

2016-12-07 Thread George Spelvin
As part of poking around vfprintf.c, I came across this low-hanging fruit. I'm waiting to test all of my printf changes together, but I thought I'd throw it out for comment early. I presume this sort of thing is okay? Basically, by reversing the sense of the FL_FLTUPP flag so it has the same po