| ??? 02/26/09 13:52 Read: times |
#162888 - size -1 Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Besides the double-increment error David noted in the diff above, I note a thing that isn't really readable.
You use "size-1" as test how long for() should continue. This is not a very readable construct. Slightly expanded, you get (size-1 != 0). This is the same as size != 1. I think most people would prefer a test while (size != 1) than a test while (size-1) for readability. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| AT24C512 Sequential Read failed!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the IIC engine is identical ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sample code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| what are the symptoms? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| symptoms | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A common mistake... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Your code looks fine | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It took me ages ! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| uint8_t range | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| confusion | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you use uint8_t in your read_seq () | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Do you want the full corrected source code ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| my own code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| An explanation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| code update | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| diff is your friend | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| size -1 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| write program, rather than code... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
It's Working | 01/01/70 00:00 |