Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
06/16/09 17:35
Read: times


 		 #166148 - No, that's precisely where you're wrong
Responding to: ???'s previous message
David Prentice said:
Having done the single calibration

No!

You have absolutely no guarantee whatsoever as to precisely what code the compiler will generate!
Therefore you have to check the calibration after every single re-build to ensure that it is still valid.

So you might just as well write it in assembler in the first place, and be done with it.

It isn't hard - see the linked instructions in: http://www.8052.com/forum/read/162556


List of 30 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
s/w delay function            01/01/70 00:00      
   Software loops can be optimized away            01/01/70 00:00      
   lacks side-effects            01/01/70 00:00      
      First time with LINT?            01/01/70 00:00      
   lacks side-effects            01/01/70 00:00      
      That does not mean it is an error.            01/01/70 00:00      
      It also blocks            01/01/70 00:00      
   How to post legible source code            01/01/70 00:00      
   DELAY_0.1.ZIP Useful?            01/01/70 00:00      
      That doesn't help, and it won't work anyhow!            01/01/70 00:00      
         I stand by it.            01/01/70 00:00      
            Yes a delay function is useful            01/01/70 00:00      
               wrong !!!!            01/01/70 00:00      
               No, that's precisely where you're wrong            01/01/70 00:00      
            How can you say that?            01/01/70 00:00      
               I think you should read Murray's comments            01/01/70 00:00      
                  I have seen ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Timers usable without start/stop too            01/01/70 00:00      
                        free-running counter/timer            01/01/70 00:00      
                           Unsigned integers            01/01/70 00:00      
                              re: unsigned            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 Try unsigned subtraction with borrow            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 bug in second (improved!?) code block            01/01/70 00:00      
   Delay Loops in 'C'..!!! NO            01/01/70 00:00      
      Go on. Suggest a SIMPLE alternative            01/01/70 00:00      
         My Methods            01/01/70 00:00      
            So he has a long list of constraints            01/01/70 00:00      
               oh boy what a load who wil have 10 minutes for this            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Ok. I was being naughty.            01/01/70 00:00      
                     you forget the obvious ...            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List