| ??? 02/18/08 07:21 Read: times |
#150987 - It's worse than that, Jim Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro said:
you have very limited control of the code generated by the compiler regarding number of instructions and machine cycles. In fact, you have no control whatsoever - see: http://www.8052.com/forum/read.phtml?id=149030 But note that delay loops are unlikely to be an appropriate solution for such long delays anyhow - see: http://www.8052.com/forum/read.phtml?id=150985 write delay functions yourself and measure it Even that won't help, since you also have no guarantee whatsoever that the compiler will generate exactly the same code next time - especially if you change compiler settings, or move to a different compiler version, etc. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 11.059Mhz clock to create 1-30 second delay in C? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| as far as I remember... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It's worse than that, Jim | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| solution? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not nested loops! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I'll check those out tonight after work | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| delay needs to be centered around 5 seconds or so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Samuel Clemens said | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Couldn\'t use of a different crystal solve this? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I wonder | 01/01/70 00:00 |