| ??? 06/04/01 16:39 Read: times |
#12182 - RE: Keil C : read two byte? |
Indeed!
Very often, the price you pay for greater efficiency is reduced portability. I was just pointing out the pros & cons of the 2 approaches. Even the union need not be a show-stopper for portability; if you write carefully, and isolate all your compiler/target dependencies into one place, it's not so bad to have compiler/target-specific versions of that file. You can use #if to select the appropriate version, and then the rest of the code just keeps using the same names! |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Keil C : read two byte? | 01/01/70 00:00 |



