Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: using config.cfg instead of config block

Re: using config.cfg instead of config block

From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:59:57 +1100

time for some goo and bad news...
the good news is the binary file is down 7288bytes once the menus are
in place (with possibly more reduction once its cleaned up)..
the bad news is something in the menu recode is causing the boost and
buffering problems! and i have no idea why that could be :'(

On 15/11/06, Michael Sevakis <jethead71_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I imagine some other size savings will happen without having to use indexes
> for certain settings as well. I'll be able to drop some stuff in the encoder
> settings being able to save/load real values and I suppose the backlight
> timeout and other stuff similarly implemented can be simplified.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Gordon" <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
> To: "Rockbox development" <rockbox-dev_at_cool.haxx.se>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:45 PM
> Subject: Re: using config.cfg instead of config block
>
>
> > On 15/11/06, Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There is alot of commented out code in the settings_save_config()
> > > function, its purpose is to dump the valid values for each setting to
> > > the disk when it saves... do we want this? (remebering it will slow
> > > down saving a bit, and increase bin size)
> >
> > I changed it from using a global_setting offset to just use the
> > address and that shrunk it by about 600bytes, and adding this only
> > added 300bytes, so I guess it can go in
>
>
>
Received on 2006-11-15


Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa