??? 02/16/09 07:31 Read: times |
#162459 - Timing can't be discussed when C is involved Responding to: ???'s previous message |
The voltages should be obvious. Your processor has a corresponding datasheet. It will tell about output voltages, unless you load the outputs too hard.
But the timing is another issue. Don't rely on C code if you need to count clock cycles. Different compilers and different optimization levels will produce different code. Your assign of low and high are directly after each other so maybe no surprises there. But then think about the loop code that decrements a 16-bit (at least) variable before deciding to take another turn. We can guess at possible assembly code for that, but there is no way we can know for sure without actually compiling and then disassembling the generated code. |
Topic | Author | Date |
what is the signal freuency on all ports of at89c52/51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
minimum pule is 1086 nanoseconds. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Buzz! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
40ns is a very short time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
You need a faster MCU | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
the fastest '51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
80ns ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Sorry about that ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Still not known if single pulse or pulse train | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Where there's a will ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Timer or PCA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
repeat earlier question with clarity | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Timing can't be discussed when C is involved | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Think about it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Supplementary question... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
At first blush . . .![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |