| ??? 03/16/07 09:46 Read: times |
#135090 - Sorry - not this time, Jez Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jez Smith said:
For short delays the overhead for setting up a hardware timer is too much compared to the overall delay time. Sure - but there are well known techniques to stop 'C' compilers from optimising such loops; eg, see Christoph's post: http://www.8052.com/forumchat/read.phtml?id=135084 And, of course, even if the compiler leaves the loop in place you have absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the timing will remain the same even between builds. This dead-horse has been beaten beyond death almost as much as the old 8255... A man of your calibre should know this! Anyway i know it is just the way things work but I am right and everyone else is wrong ;P~~~~ Sorry - not this time, Jez |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| akkkk! stupid compilers, something to watch | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ehm, isn't it the user? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well it might be phooey;- but its pretty common | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have you considered using a timer, perhaps... :-) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yep but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sorry - not this time, Jez | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if it is THAT short... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe not... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Beware. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well, any compiler with half a brain does that. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| volatile | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| use util/delay.h and read the lib documents | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| optimization = lost control | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| well that is the first mistake | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| First mistake is using a HLL | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Optimise & kill code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| optimizers and NASA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| There are many levels in Keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not always a good idea | 01/01/70 00:00 |