| ??? 06/14/11 07:51 Read: times |
#182655 - Readability helps Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Neil said:
Per Westermark said:
I'm way less likely to miss out when the assembler instruction uses [<addr>] than if it uses #<addr>. I must make two typing errors on the same line for the assembler to not detect a problem. That assumes that it's just a typing mistake; if it's the more fundamental error of using an address where a literal is required (or vice versa), then the actual syntax doesn't help. As you said earlier, 'C' has types to help here - Assemblers don't. No - it assumes that it was just a typing mistake that introduced the error, and not a conceptual knowledge error. But the real problem isn't how it was introduced, but how visible the error is when you review the code (and do know the conceptual difference between immediate values and indirection). And that is where the '[' <addr> ']' has a great advantage - at least for me, when I do review code. And why an assembler that both uses #<val> and $<val> is way worse than an assembler that uses #<val> and <val>H. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 8051 core quiz | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| quizes are out of fashion these days... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I did it.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| missed CJNE | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| indeed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I guess a quite frequent oversight | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: optimize LJMPs to AJMPs, etc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| caught again! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Most common 8051 assembly mistake? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not just 8051? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Different assemblers have different probabilities | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Conceptual & Typographical errors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| some assemblers do | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Readability helps | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
99's | 01/01/70 00:00 |