| ??? 08/25/09 12:04 Read: times |
#168539 - so why Bit addressable memory? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
so if the only instructions that can be used with bit addressable memory are SETB and CLR, what is their purpose? It doesn't seem to be productive to set and clear a bit if it has no effect anywhere and you can't later tell if it is set or cleared. What is the point of memory if it can't be recalled? Subconcious memory? |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Addressing bit memory indirectly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not possible. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| so why Bit addressable memory? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sure you can and THINK | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fast and saves code and RAM space | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No such instruction... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks so much | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That's _too_ limited... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not vast - actually quite small. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bible time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| store bit address... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if '2051' is the Atmel, then | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "cable" only for the "S" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I second the motion and add | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I have... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Smoking bad for the health | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| an issue many newbies are not aware of is ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| NXP??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Design flaw? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a feature | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| cheap | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Code: Addressing bit memory indirectly | 01/01/70 00:00 |