AP_Scripting: allow to mark arguments for no range check, optimize for size

[IamPete1]

This saves quite abit of flash. Majority of the saving from Os and about 3k from skipping range checks on floats that are currently -FLT_MAX FLT_MAX. Removing the initialization saves just less than 200bytes. Removing the extra else saves nothing.

I don't see any other low hanging fruit without getting a bit more into the lua side of things. There are quite a few things that look like they might be a easy saving, but in fact it is so easy that the compiler is already doing it in any case.

We could save lots more if we decided to remove more range checks, in many cases the c++ function will check for us in any-case, sensor index's for example, but I think more than I have done here really ought to be looked at individually, there could well be some functions where ignoring the range checks would be bad.

[IamPete1]

Interesting to note that the generated bindings are now 5489 lines of code.

[IamPete1]

Binary           text               data         bss          total
---------------  -----------------  -----------  -----------  -----------------
ardusub          -15352 (-1.0195%)  0 (0.0000%)  0 (0.0000%)  -15352 (-0.8682%)
blimp            -15344 (-1.2430%)  0 (0.0000%)  0 (0.0000%)  -15344 (-1.0251%)
arducopter-heli  -17008 (-1.0229%)  0 (0.0000%)  0 (0.0000%)  -17008 (-0.8835%)
arducopter       -17008 (-1.0062%)  0 (0.0000%)  0 (0.0000%)  -17008 (-0.8710%)
ardurover        -15352 (-1.0179%)  0 (0.0000%)  0 (0.0000%)  -15352 (-0.8671%)
antennatracker   -15344 (-1.1778%)  0 (0.0000%)  0 (0.0000%)  -15344 (-0.9804%)
arduplane        -16424 (-0.9701%)  0 (0.0000%)  0 (0.0000%)  -16424 (-0.8400%)

Saves quite abit more flash here than it did localy..... I had it saving 6k,

Turns out just to be the new compiler, old compiler Os saves 3k, new compiler it saves 13k

[IamPete1]

With this patch scripting on Durandal still costs 135k! The majority of that is the included lua source, roughly 40k is bindings and such on the AP side.

[khancyr]

Shouldn't we need the initilization as this is compiled with gcc and not g++?

[tridge]

I think this looks good, but I'd like @WickedShell to take a look

[IamPete1]

rebased

[IamPete1]

rebased to get past semaphore.

[tridge]

@WickedShell please have a look. If you can't look in the next week I think we should merge