| ??? 01/11/11 08:30 Read: times |
#180512 - RE: David's remarks about volatility Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
I don't quite understand David's remarks about volatility - the requirements to qualify a variable defined in this way as volatile are exactly the same as for any other variable (say in internal RAM), or am I missing something? Reference: http://www.8052.com/forum/read/180495 I think his comment was that, at some point, he had found that SDCC doesn't work properly with the 'volatile' qualifier in there...? |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| sdcc internal error / C syntax | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| legality of indexing NULL pointer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bug | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| version | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| version revisited | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thank you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fixed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no snapshot | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| works | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 0 is special - but so is NULL. indexing around NULL is bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No guarantee that a NULL pointer points to any memory | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I know :-( | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use of __at ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What is "that way"? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the antique version.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| XBYTE macro | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Okay, then the following definition... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: David's remarks about volatility | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Close, but no cigar | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Avoid the 'volatile' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| instead of offsetting... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dereferencing a '_REG | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use of __at ? [ed] | 01/01/70 00:00 |