| ??? 07/04/07 12:17 Read: times |
#141493 - several reasons Responding to: ???'s previous message |
may I ask, why is a separate asm better than inline?
1) the Keil inline STINKS. It require you to do compile to srC and assemble the result. thus, for debugging purposes, you have no C. 2) an inline ISR would still be entered in 'C fashion' so no overhead savings. 3) inline asm is still controlled by the compiler to some extent, I hve seen some compiler adding a 'wrapper' around inline asm. 4) inline asm is still 'C' thus half the advantages of using asm are lost. 5), 6), 7) I am sure are there as well Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| How to generate 100 Khz square wave 80C51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Tips | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 1 KHz | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| that's ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SI Units | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 1024 = Ki | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C interrupt overhead | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: C interrupt overhead | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and listen to the guru! :-) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| several reasons | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yet another reason to avoid using HLL's! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Optimizations | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use Timer0 auo reload | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| using | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| interrupt vectoring vs. latency | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Then the Interupt must be in ASM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do you mean... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler generated IRQ vectors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OOPS we both meant LJMP REALisr | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the original problem... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Interrupt Latency + Vectoring + Service | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| indufficient info | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
use MCS52 better option | 01/01/70 00:00 |