Re: [avr-gcc-list] meta: separate or combined postings for loosely related subjects?

[Sean at KelvinTech]

I'd like issues brought up in a manner that mere mortals can read and
understand.
Eg. "implementation of symmetrical operation with decided asymmetry in cycle
count between operands" Means nothing to me, but I'm just and electronics
and electrical engineer and software professional.




-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
Wolfgang Hospital
Sent: Sunday, 5 July 2015 2:03 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] meta: separate or combined postings for loosely
related subjects?

(no British English spelling checker active - yet) On one Q&A platform one
question sparked my interest in coding multiplication for AVR, and some of
the results (especially retiring two multiplier bits instead of one at very
little additional cost) have looked like GCC for AVR should profit from
it(in part for Atmel Studio still including a libgcc predating gjl's
2012/08/24
rewrites)(<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29812009/faster-16bit-multipli
cation-algorithm-for-8-bit-mcu>).
With my mind still not made up about how to contribute (dumping it to bug
tracking being the timid&lazy option), let me start with a meta²
question: Do you prefer each of a few subjectsbrought up by the same
occasion(like discriminate "optimise time" by expected vs. worst case;
implementation of symmetrical operation with decided asymmetry in cycle
count between operands; code generation for multiplication by constants for
2 vs. 3 address architectures (and weird intermediates like the AVRs);
choosing between not totally ordered implementations, testing
multiplication; avr.md vs. -fixed; multilibs) in a separate posting, or
should they be kept together, if at the risks of postings as long-winded as
this question?

regards,

HoW

--
Wolfgang Hospital


_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list