| ??? 06/22/09 13:13 Read: times |
#166345 - atomicity Responding to: ???'s previous message |
making timer values 16 bit may (often will) lead to either atomicity problems or other problems (too may 'gaps' with interrupts disabled.
the better solution is to make the timer variables 8 bit and if more than 8 bits of delay is required simply go if (!timer){msb--; if(!msb){timed out I would like to see yout timer ISR but I have no intention of searching throyugh a list of other stuff to find it, provide a link to the actual code, not to a list. If you will feel that I am not 'civil' with the above comment, go cry somewhere else Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Pseudo timers make programming delays easy. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| volatile + racing condition | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| slow processors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You beat me to it... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Timers_0.1 available. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ISR defining with SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh, I just read it in the manual | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| only conditionally, as #ifdef SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC and ISRs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Prototyping ISRs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you can see it as if.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC Quirk? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
internals of SDCC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| duh | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Too quick | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I see something else... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That helped. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oops! Timers_0.2 available. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you persist | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Good idea! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| atomicity | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I gladly, click on a link .... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Direct link | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| that was clearly possible, I wonder why ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one more thing, now we are digging deep | 01/01/70 00:00 |