TMS320F28388D: CLA code size

vesgine

Part Number: TMS320F28388D

I found that there are differences about code size between CLA and CPU as shown below.

code	code size when loaded in CLA	code size when loaded in CPU
sVar.sMem1[0].fd=sVar.sMem2[0].fa * sVar.sMem3[0].sData.fb + sVar.sMem3[0].sData.fc	254	42
sVar.sMem1[0].fd=sVar.sMem1[0].fa * sVar.sMem1[0].fb + sVar.sMem1[0].fc	66	41
sVar.fd=sVar.fa * sVar.fb + sVar.fc	20	19
fd = fa * fb + fc;	20	19

fa, fb, fc, fd are float variables.

The code size in CLA is much greater than that in CPU, especially when complex struct variable are used.

Why?

Is there any way to reduce the code size in CLA?

over 5 years ago

0 Lori Heustess over 5 years ago

TI__Guru* 90975 points

Hello,

Please see this discussion regarding C28x/CLA codesize comparisons.

https://e2e.ti.com/support/microcontrollers/c2000/f/171/t/912709?TMS320F28069-occupy-larger-space-if-running-in-CLA-than-running-in-C28X-RAM-for-the-same-function

Regards

Lori

0 vesgine over 5 years ago in reply to Lori Heustess

Expert 1315 points

Hi,

So, there are differences about addressing modes between CLA and CPU. And in most cases, the code size in CLA is larger than that in CPU.

For my case, is there any way to reduce the code size in CLA? Could you give me some advice? I want to keep the structure variable definition if possible.

0 George Mock over 5 years ago

TI__Guru**** 243820 points

For the CLA source file that has the worst code size problems, please follow the directions in the article How to Submit a Compiler Test Case. I'll use that test case to get a better understanding of the generated code. I may be able to make some suggestions for improvement. Or, it might uncover a problem in the compiler. Or, something like that.

Thanks and regards,

-George

C2000™︎ microcontrollers

C2000 microcontrollers forum

TMS320F28388D: CLA code size