# Problem with code generated too big in 0.30.1 vs 0.29.1 **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [July 29, 2019, 1:23am UTC](https://forum.xod.io/t/problem-with-code-generated-too-big-in-0-30-1-vs-0-29-1/2456 "2019-07-29T01:23:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cesars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@cesars](https://forum.xod.io/u/cesars)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 1:23am UTC](https://forum.xod.io/t/problem-with-code-generated-too-big-in-0-30-1-vs-0-29-1/2456/1 "2019-07-29T01:23:23Z")
Testing my example `cesars/0-all-examples/0003-rich-time-schrolling v0.0.14` in version 0.30.1, the first thing I found is the lack of `pulse-on-change`, I solved it by changing to `pulse-on-change(number)`. Now in version 0.30.1 I have an error due to code too large, of 71% to 100%. (Arduino UNO) ```auto Sketch uses 32368 bytes (100%) of program storage space. Maximum is 32256 bytes. Global variables use 1958 bytes (95%) of dynamic memory, leaving 90 bytes for local variables. Maximum is 2048 bytes. Sketch too big; see http://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/Troubleshooting#size for tips on reducing it. ``` testing in 0.29.1 ```auto Sketch uses 23188 bytes (71%) of program storage space. Maximum is 32256 bytes. Global variables use 1982 bytes (96%) of dynamic memory, leaving 66 bytes for local variables. Maximum is 2048 bytes. Low memory available, stability problems may occur. ``` ---
**Author:** ![cesars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@cesars](https://forum.xod.io/u/cesars)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 2:05am UTC](https://forum.xod.io/t/problem-with-code-generated-too-big-in-0-30-1-vs-0-29-1/2456/2 "2019-07-30T02:05:34Z")
After editing some nodes, I managed to reduce the code v0.30.1 ```auto of 100% to 83% of program storage space. of 95% to 86% of dynamic memory. ``` vs v0.29.1 ```auto of 71% to 64% of program storage space. of 96% to 91% of dynamic memory. ``` I have only passed some nodes to C ++, in version 0.30.1 there has been more noticeable resource savings. then I will upload the library update, version v0.0.16 or higher ---
**Author:** ![nkrkv](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.xod.io/nkrkv/32/8_2.png) [@nkrkv](https://forum.xod.io/u/nkrkv)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 10:27am UTC](https://forum.xod.io/t/problem-with-code-generated-too-big-in-0-30-1-vs-0-29-1/2456/3 "2019-07-30T10:27:42Z")
I’ve compared the generated C++ before and after 0.30. And yes, the problem is in the errors. Previously, they were ignored just in the place where they were emitted (the `ERR` pulse) and now every recursively downstream node makes a computation to check whether it is affected by an error or not. The deeper the node, the more complex the computation is: ```cpp bool error_input_IDX = false; error_input_IDX |= node_102.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_IDX |= node_97.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_92.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_86.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_81.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_78.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_74.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_71.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_68.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_64.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_78.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_IDX |= node_86.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_IDX |= node_97.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_IDX |= node_81.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_IDX |= node_108.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_IDX |= node_102.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_IDX |= node_155.outputHasError_OUT; error_input_IDX |= node_154.outputHasError_OUT; bool error_input_X0 = false; error_input_X0 |= node_102.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X0 |= node_97.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_92.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_86.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_81.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_78.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_74.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_71.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_68.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_64.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_78.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X0 |= node_86.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X0 |= node_97.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X0 |= node_81.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X0 |= node_108.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X0 |= node_102.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X0 |= node_155.outputHasError_OUT; error_input_X0 |= node_154.outputHasError_OUT; bool error_input_X1 = false; error_input_X1 |= node_102.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X1 |= node_97.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X1 |= node_92.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X1 |= node_86.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X1 |= node_81.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X1 |= node_78.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X1 |= node_74.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X1 |= node_71.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X1 |= node_68.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X1 |= node_64.outputHasError_DONE; error_input_X1 |= node_78.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X1 |= node_86.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X1 |= node_97.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X1 |= node_81.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X1 |= node_108.outputHasError_BYTE; error_input_X1 |= node_102.outputHasError_DONE; bool hasUpstreamError = false; hasUpstreamError |= error_input_IDX; hasUpstreamError |= error_input_X0; hasUpstreamError |= error_input_X1; ``` These computations consume flash. ☹ 🔫 The example above is a rollout of a single stage of the `dataselect` variadic node. And your example has maaany stages. Well, I overlooked such scenarios and as a result, XOD 0.30 performs worse. I need some more time to find a solution to get back in terms of memory usage. If someone feels the power to solve this C++ riddle, help is much appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![cesars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@cesars](https://forum.xod.io/u/cesars)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 11:47am UTC](https://forum.xod.io/t/problem-with-code-generated-too-big-in-0-30-1-vs-0-29-1/2456/4 "2019-07-30T11:47:41Z")
> [@nkrkv](#): > > ☹ 🔫 😅 I clarify that the initial test version was the v0.0.14 of my library. In version 0.0.15 I did the compilation but when putting a `loop` in rtc there was a reading error that blocked my pc. ---
**Author:** ![cesars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@cesars](https://forum.xod.io/u/cesars)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 12:23pm UTC](https://forum.xod.io/t/problem-with-code-generated-too-big-in-0-30-1-vs-0-29-1/2456/5 "2019-07-30T12:23:16Z")
I did a test deactivating ERR on all the nodes of `rtc` and yes, the consumption of resources was reduced. ```auto Sketch uses 20616 bytes (63%) of program storage space. Maximum is 32256 bytes. Global variables use 1753 bytes (85%) of dynamic memory, leaving 295 bytes for local variables. Maximum is 2048 bytes. Low memory available, stability problems may occur. ``` ---
**Author:** ![nkrkv](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.xod.io/nkrkv/32/8_2.png) [@nkrkv](https://forum.xod.io/u/nkrkv)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 2:24pm UTC](https://forum.xod.io/t/problem-with-code-generated-too-big-in-0-30-1-vs-0-29-1/2456/6 "2019-07-30T14:24:46Z")
At least we got an idea on how to improve the situation [https://github.com/xodio/xod/issues/1832](https://github.com/xodio/xod/issues/1832) It’s hard to predict how much memory it brings us back but I’m quite optimistic about it 🤞