| ??? 04/07/09 22:30 Read: times |
#164469 - Portability Responding to: ???'s previous message |
David Prentice said:
Of course you can do something similar with the _at_ keyword but you can have portability problems. You will always have portability problems with addressing specific 8051 memory spaces, because they are totally beyond the scope of the standard - therefore whatever means you use will always rely on implementation-specific (ie, non-portable) language extensions! You can, of course, minimise the problems of that by "encapsulating" all the implementation-specifics in macros... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| How to access memory mapped 8255 with SDCC? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| also asked here: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 8255 with SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Wrong question? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It's C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not on the 8051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oh yes it is! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use XBYTE macro | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Isn't there a problem with that? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oops. I used a wrong example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Portability | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| like this... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How about a macro in ASM, callable from 'C'? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This is HOW I will Prefer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| LST output of my previously posted code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Try the comparison | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Unnecessarily complicated! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| NOT UNNECESSARILY | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You are mistaken | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Array or pointer similar | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That should not be necessary | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SFRX(...,. ..) worked | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SFRX - presumably, that's an SDCC extension? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Found it! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Found it! | 01/01/70 00:00 |