| ??? 01/13/11 17:18 Read: times |
#180560 - I agree Responding to: ???'s previous message |
..but I'm too lazy to commit a patch. Sofar I didn't get any feedback so I wonder if anyone else beside me ever used CMON51 with that particular board/uC module.
In the future I'll probably include the leading * and omit that suffix. |
| 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 |