??? 04/27/07 12:34 Read: times |
#138107 - why "C" Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Neil said:
Surely, this has nothing specifically to do with 'C'?
If you were to set TI in assembler (implicitly or explicitly) with serial interrupts enabled, you'd get exactly the same!? Certainly. The difference is, so to say, educational, or psychological. Those who do asm usually read the relevant parts of "bible", and once they start writing a serial ISR they are mostly aware of how the TI/RI stuff works. I see it very unlikely that somebody in asm would experiment with mixed polled transmission and interrupt-based reception. On the other hand, the C-user learns pretty quickly (perhaps in Lesson 1, Hello world!) how to use printf. He doesn't want to be bothered by the details, so he simply copies out the example from the manual (or example application - the SDCC manual "library functions" section avoids this problem simply by providing little enough information with the headline "this is messy and incomplete" :-P ) - here is where setting TI came, maybe even in the "hidden" form (by setting a value of 0x52 into SCON). Later, he finds an another example, this time an interrupt-driven reception - and puts things simply together... This of course might (will) happen with any higher level language so this is not my usual C-hater Pascal-lover rant (and also might happen in asm, given enough - and bad enough - "examples"). JW |
Topic | Author | Date |
Serial ISR and TIC or Timer 2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Calling printf from within an ISR... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
It is worse than that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Cross-Reference | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Serial interrupt | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thanks to you all again | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
why \"somehow\"? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Nothing to do with 'C'? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
why "C" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
made it a FAQ | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Nothing wrong with setting TI![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |