From: George Styles <george_at_ripnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:22:06 +0100

I agree with (whoever) said that having complete malloc and so on is a bad
idea, as it adds too much overhead to an embedded system. They also said
that its standard practice in embedded systems to not have mallow

Why not compromise and have a fixed static memory buffer designated as a
scratch area, ie, can be used within a routine, but dont expect the contents
to be the same next time.

g

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Wood" <John.Wood_at_royalblue.com>
To: <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 4:02 PM
Subject: RE: search a string


> >> If I understand correctly, that was what François was trying at first.
> But it was too slow. <<
>
> I wrote a prototype that searches the current playlist for a string -- a
> playlist of 2000 songs. It took about 3 seconds on the recorder, is that
> really too slow?
>
> It did load most of the playlist in mind you -- used malloc (which is why
I
> haven't submitted it, I needed to change it to use static mem which would
be
> slower and generally a waste of space if you ask me... using static memory
> for everything is a bad idea if you ask me, put me off developing for
> rockbox).
>
> My prototype had 2 options -- one for doing a scan of the whole hard disk
> (which would take about 10 seconds and would thrash the disk), and another
> that scanned the playlist. Having a third option to use an index file
would
> be even better. But I think you should give all options in case the index
> file isn't up to date.
>
> John
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> This message is intended only for the stated addressee(s)
> and may be confidential. Access to this email by anyone
> else is unauthorised. Any opinions expressed in this email
> do not necessarily reflect the opinions of royalblue.
> Any unauthorised disclosure, use or dissemination,
> either whole or in part is prohibited,. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this message, please notify
> the sender immediately.
> *************************************************************************
>
>
Received on 2002-09-06