| ??? 06/22/09 07:19 Read: times |
#166333 - SDCC Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Just tried with SDCC and to my big surprise it worked out of the box! Okay, it spit out warnings about obsolescence of the reg51.h header, but it's still valid for the for the "vanilla '51".
There are some issues in SDCC with linking interrupts - IIRC they have to be inside the same C source - so SDCC-specific instructions might call for a non-standard #include of timer.c or something similar (SDCC gurus here?), but those who do SDCC are certainly aware of that. JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Pseudo timers make programming delays easy. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| volatile + racing condition | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| slow processors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You beat me to it... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Timers_0.1 available. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ISR defining with SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh, I just read it in the manual | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| only conditionally, as #ifdef SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC and ISRs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Prototyping ISRs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you can see it as if.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC Quirk? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
internals of SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| duh | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Too quick | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I see something else... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That helped. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oops! Timers_0.2 available. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you persist | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Good idea! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| atomicity | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I gladly, click on a link .... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Direct link | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| that was clearly possible, I wonder why ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one more thing, now we are digging deep | 01/01/70 00:00 |