| ??? 06/21/09 20:03 Modified: 06/21/09 20:05 Read: times |
#166319 - that's it Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Frieder Ferlemann said:
there is a lot to say about your code ... and most if it is already said in Chapter 6 and 3.9.1 of the SDCC's fine manual. Just a note: a somewhat-better-than-SDCC C compiler would optimise out the loop entirely, in spite of your attempt to fool it by the "opti_fooler". I wonder how could this work in Keil or Raisonance. JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| UART code porting to SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| doesn't SDCC warn about line 36? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| that's it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ah ha | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Don't blame the optimiser! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| doesn't SDCC warn about line 36 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| hmmm | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
modified dog | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I cannot remember now | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| xmt_flag., why "int"? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if you want to use it as "int" / "char" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You destroy succeding putchar()'s | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "Volatile" Helps | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "bit" is more useful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| buzzzzz | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| family | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| stdbool | 01/01/70 00:00 |