Subject: [Lwip] Fwd: [Contiki-developers] Reducing code footprint of ipv6+rpl?

From: Zhen Cao <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 17:11:21 +0800

Forward a discussion from Contiki-developer list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tobias Petry <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 7:53 PM
Subject: [Contiki-developers] Reducing code footprint of ipv6+rpl?
To: Contiki developer mailing list <[email-masked]>

Hi,
according to msp430-size the ipv6+rpl udp example
(examples/ipv6/rpl-udp) does need ~44KB:
msp430-size udp-client.sky
text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
44308        188       8592      53088       cf60    udp-client.sky

But the msp430 used in the tmote sky is limited to 48KB, so there's
really really really little space left. Insufficent space for my
application as i have already an .text overflow of 500 bytes with much
features missing i do have to implement.

Is there any possibility of dramatically decreasing the code footprint
of the ipv6+rpl stack? A simple "Hello World" application does need
22KB. Seems the ipv6 stack oder rpl routing does have a massive code
footprint.

Tobias

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Contiki-developers mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/contiki-developers

-- 
Best regards,
Zhen

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 10:58:25 +0100

> features missing i do have to implement.

Yep.

While we often peter to think in orders of magnitude, in this space there is a simple "does fit/doesn't fit" dichotomy.
You can always optimize and shift the boundaries by a few dozens of percent, but given the pre-existing complexity of the protocols we are using, in the end the classes defined in the lwig guidance document *are* representing a useful step function of functionality.  (The tmote is at the bottom end of class 1, that's why you hear the crunching sound.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:42:10 +0100

On Mar 7, 2012, at 10:58, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> While we often peter to think in orders of magnitude

Spelling autocorrection is a wonderful concept...

s/peter/prefer/

Grüße, Carsten