| ??? 09/22/08 12:57 Read: times |
#158507 - Compiler-specific? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
while it is not wrong to use 'const code' albeit const being superfluous It may or may not be superfluous, depending on the compiler. I think it is superfluous for Keil - but the OP isn't using Keil. I think this is one of those cases where being explicit wins over trying to "optimise" the source text? "adding in the CONST keyword" will not make it 'code' That is certainly true of Keil but, again, may not be true of others. It is certainly true that some non-8051 compilers can take 'const' to mean "put this in ROM"... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Location of Pointers in XDATA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What does datasheet says? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RC-51 ref manual, pg 51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ahh so easy when you read the instructions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| xdata? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| too? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well yes actually - now that you mention it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| what do you really want? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You are correct you supplied the answer as asked | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| wronk 'keyword' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| const + code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the compiler is smart enough to ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler-specific? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It didn't actually compile with CONST | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
const is expected to catch non-const assigns | 01/01/70 00:00 |