| ??? 06/10/11 07:40 Read: times |
#182571 - Not offence intended Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Maarten Brock said:
Maybe a look at my profile will help you to stop being doubtful. Never ever I thought of doubting your (or for that matter, any of the forum members) expertise. I'm posting my problem because I'm stuck somewhere or I'm having some doubt about coding (because I'm not proficient in C and understanding the compiler). My being doubtful was intended towards declaration of P0_6 & you mentioning it as volatile, even though I'm using it as input pin. Any further clarification will clear my doubt. Sorry again if my earlier post has hurt you. Sandy *** Is there any other way of defining this P0_6 so that compiler doesn't treat it as volatile bit? Sandy |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Compiler variations?? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fundamental philosophy of High-Level Languges (HLL) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and so what | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Stop wondering about the compiler output | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Very nice to learn this important matter | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Exactly what you wrote | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| volatile sbit may be the problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| read up on (not) volatile | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Look at my profile | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not offence intended | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| defining P0_6 so that compiler doesn't treat it as volatile | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Skip the goto - almost always exists beautiful rewrites | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Goto really is a bastard code construct | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and therefore ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Will come back with modified code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Wonderful as always! | 01/01/70 00:00 |