??? 11/20/07 12:42 Read: times |
#147246 - single-character const Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Hi Andy,
My interest was on strings, single-character constant here is used just for test. I'm trying to switch to "C" on hard way - by rewriting old code, for which i know how it works. So on assembler i have something like "switch in C" , where i use addresses of corresponding procedures to be call. On other places user interface messages (const char msg[] ) are "called" trough "switch" type tables too - these tables contain pair of numbers - "switch" itself and address of first message line. So , i started to think how to implement same structures , without retyping at first stage. And as You stated ASM-thinking is different , so i found unexpected limit in compiler, maybe compiler has option , maybe not. But for me, in my situation, is not very interesting to read 789 pages manual and to find , that this is non-enabled operation. Because i plane simultaneously to move to C and to ARM, maybe will drop IAR limitations to IAR-fans. regards, Stefan |
Topic | Author | Date |
Sequence of learning 8051, asm and C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
2 Issues | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
my wrong path | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
OT, but | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
OT - error message | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Use the tags | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
single-character const | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
QED? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
As Erik suggests | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Just learning - too luxury. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
how can that be "too luxorious" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Foolish builder? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
pointer to a const | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
True, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Explaining | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
helpfull ,thanks, but.. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Declaration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Adjust declaration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
thanks again | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
const | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
no wrong path | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
learning C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Freebies | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Erik is right | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not necessary | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
You\'re skipping the most important step ... | 01/01/70 00:00 |