Because of integer promotion the compiler is having a hard time generating
efficient code to calculate TIMER_DIFF* macros in some situations.
In the below example, the return value is "int", and this is causing the
trouble.
Example C code:
int __attribute__ ((noinline)) test(uint8_t current_timer, uint8_t start_timer)
{
return TIMER_DIFF_8(current_timer, start_timer);
}
BEFORE: (with -Os)
00004c40 <test>:
4c40: 28 2f mov r18, r24
4c42: 30 e0 ldi r19, 0x00 ; 0
4c44: 46 2f mov r20, r22
4c46: 50 e0 ldi r21, 0x00 ; 0
4c48: 86 17 cp r24, r22
4c4a: 20 f0 brcs .+8 ; 0x4c54 <test+0x14>
4c4c: c9 01 movw r24, r18
4c4e: 84 1b sub r24, r20
4c50: 95 0b sbc r25, r21
4c52: 08 95 ret
4c54: c9 01 movw r24, r18
4c56: 84 1b sub r24, r20
4c58: 95 0b sbc r25, r21
4c5a: 93 95 inc r25
4c5c: 08 95 ret
AFTER: (with -Os)
00004c40 <test>:
4c40: 86 1b sub r24, r22
4c42: 90 e0 ldi r25, 0x00 ; 0
4c44: 08 95 ret
Note: the example is showing -Os but improvements can be seen at all optimization levels,
including -O0. We never use -O0, but I tested it to make sure that no extra code is
generated in that case.
#endif
-#define TIMER_DIFF(a, b, max) ((a) >= (b) ? (a) - (b) : (max) + 1 - (b) + (a))
+#define TIMER_DIFF(a, b, max) ((max == UINT8_MAX) ? ((uint8_t)((a)-(b))) : ( \
+ (max == UINT16_MAX) ? ((uint16_t)((a)-(b))) : ( \
+ (max == UINT32_MAX) ? ((uint32_t)((a)-(b))) : ( \
+ (a) >= (b) ? (a) - (b) : (max) + 1 - (b) + (a) ))))
#define TIMER_DIFF_8(a, b) TIMER_DIFF(a, b, UINT8_MAX)
#define TIMER_DIFF_16(a, b) TIMER_DIFF(a, b, UINT16_MAX)
#define TIMER_DIFF_32(a, b) TIMER_DIFF(a, b, UINT32_MAX)