| ??? 04/25/11 19:25 Read: times |
#182040 - Yes, really strange Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Given the existence of "unsigned char" and "unsigned [long] [int]", it would have been reasonable to have a "unsigned bit". But "char unsigned bit" seems like someone did a heavy patch somewhere inside an existing compiler to fool it somehow. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Sbit or Bit decalaration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Users Manual | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RTFM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| uC51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How to post links | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, really strange | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bool | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Andys statement stands | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nobody mentioned storage | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, I did - as did the OP [edited] | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two values still != single-bit data type | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Depends what you mean by "bit" ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| controller's pin | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why macros? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RTFM! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Was easy to locate | 01/01/70 00:00 |