??? 01/14/11 19:18 Read: times |
#180594 - "non-arbitrary" ? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Justin Fontes said:
in non-arbitrary (sic?) application... Pardon? Do you mean, "non-trivial" ? Dare I say, that using an RTOS on an 8051 would actually hinder ones processing performance. I think that would be far too much of a sweeping generalisation! A much wiser solution is to split the power by combining multiple processors. Again. With a hot processor, an RTOS makes sense It's really more about the nature of the application - rather than the "hotness" of the processor... Anytime "real" processing is involved, an RTOS will be utilized. Please explain that further: what is "real"? |
Topic | Author | Date |
it just struck me, is this why RTOS 'need' is so prevalent? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Two Camps Here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Best Practice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
a similar discussion... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I have always maintained the belief... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
"non-arbitrary" ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
"Real" Processing exposed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Too Specific | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
sweeping generalisation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RTOS are very useful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I think this got away ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Blocking/nonblocking I/O | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Not The only reason | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I considered developer effort | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
code generator | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Another neat feature | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
there is such an attachment ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Lots of tools available | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not really | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Lots of C tools | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
widespread | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Missed the point! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Ecosystem | 01/01/70 00:00 |