Quote Originally Posted by JD123 View Post
Interesting... I didn't think I called any routines that used the WDT. I'll check the .lst and see if there are any in there.
PBP inserts CLEARWDT instructions whenever it thinks there's a possibility of the WDT timing out during execution. But I don't know, and I've never bothered checking, if PBP even takes a look at the config fuses to see if the WDT is enabled and/or being used. I'm assuming that PBP ALWAYS inserts the instruction whether you are using the WDT or not. Better safe than sorry type thing. At any rate, I know from my experience that in projects where I'm not using the WDT timer at all, the DEFINE saves a load of program space...or at least a fair percentage.

On the outside, this looks to take about the same or more Tcy's to run as my 2 serial loops. I'll compile the two different ways and look at the .lst to count the Tcy's and see which is faster.
And they'll probably end up being close if not identical. About the only thing I know for sure, is the nested 'manual' for/next loop will save a few bytes of program space.

I've made sure that all variables used in this loop process are in bank0. Can variables not used in the loop slow the loop down?
I wouldn't think so, but...again, keeping everything you can in BANK0 can only speed things up a bit and save a few bytes here and there.