Re: A89: Clearing a string


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A89: Clearing a string




Well, honestly I've never considered extra generated code since I'm used to
programming for PCs and not calculators. I would expect the generated code
to be identical, but that's probably a bad assumption. As for redundency, of
course it is redundant. I'm all for redundency when it makes the code more
clear. Isn't that practically the definition of "comment"? But if it affects
the code size on a platform where that matters then that's a different
story.

-Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Canazzi <jcanazzi@cybercable.fr>
To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: A89: Clearing a string


>
>>
>> while i agree completely with you on the first, I don't on the second.  I
>> think that the semicolon at the end of the for line clearly indicates
that
>> the for loop has no body.  The continue is just redundant and takes up
>> space.
>>
>
>
>I guess the continue won't generate extra code if you compile with -O2...
>
>
>