| ??? 06/14/11 06:46 Read: times |
#182651 - Conceptual & Typographical errors Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Per Westermark said:
I'm way less likely to miss out when the assembler instruction uses [<addr>] than if it uses #<addr>. I must make two typing errors on the same line for the assembler to not detect a problem. That assumes that it's just a typing mistake; if it's the more fundamental error of using an address where a literal is required (or vice versa), then the actual syntax doesn't help. As you said earlier, 'C' has types to help here - Assemblers don't. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 8051 core quiz | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| quizes are out of fashion these days... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I did it.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| missed CJNE | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| indeed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I guess a quite frequent oversight | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: optimize LJMPs to AJMPs, etc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| caught again! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Most common 8051 assembly mistake? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not just 8051? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Different assemblers have different probabilities | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Conceptual & Typographical errors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| some assemblers do | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Readability helps | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
99's | 01/01/70 00:00 |