AVR-Chat

Dave,

> I was thinking that it was a 256 WORD table, which it isn't.

ahh, fair point then.

> So, the added proviso that it has to reside in the bottom 64k to work
> with the simple instruction set.

well, the dvice wasn't stated..
given the fact that the preffered soloution was some hard wired soloution, 
also implies that the device wasn't already soldered into a PCB and insdie 
an existing product.

> If not, and you try to make it freely relocatable, you end up with a
> lot more cycles.

as I say, code space wasn't an issue, in which case, all I'd say is that the 
table *MUST* reside in the lower 64K :-)

Perhaps a good example of why poorly defined problems lead to confusing 
results :-)

Paul