| ??? 04/20/04 13:12 Read: times |
#68883 - - a case for naked functions? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
sorry! made a mistake in understanding...
anyway... since we need to call an assembly routine from C I guess you could use a naked function (please note that this would be if the implementation were to be in SDCC). You could code the entire function in assembly and then define/declare it to be naked. Also, in this function you'll have to take care of the register banks, pushing and poping the registers that might get destroyed in the course of your function and so on... Keil surely must have something on these lines?? cheers, Sushil |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| calling a C function in asm, vise versa | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: calling a C function in asm, vise versa | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: calling a C function in asm, vise versa | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Manuals | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: calling a C function in asm, vise versa | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: calling a C function in asm, vise versa | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Calling functions - not inline assembler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Calling functions - not inline assembler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Calling functions - not inline assembler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Wot - No Manuals?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Wot - No Manuals?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Wot - No Manuals?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Wot - No Manuals?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Wot - No Manuals?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Negative logic?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Negative logic?! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| - a case for naked functions? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| - a case for naked functions? | 01/01/70 00:00 |