??? 08/06/04 05:02 Read: times |
#75532 - RE: Syntax - Anders, Rob, Charles Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Hello Raghu,
According to Anders, the declaration syntax I showed in my earlier post also works with your assembler. I would advise you to use this, because it will not only overlay your variables properly (I promise! ;o) ), but it will also make your code that bit easier to understand and maintain. After all, it means you only have one absolute allocation to deal with and, even without any comments, it will be immediately clear which bit-variable belongs to which byte. The way you propose to do it can also work, but, as Russell pointed out, the bit segment should start at 0. The disadvantage of this method is that the assembler/linker will (or at least should!) generate 'memory overlap' warnings for every bit that is overlayed on the previously declared bytes, because it sees them as independent variables. Happy coding, Rob. |
Topic | Author | Date |
Memory mapped I/O hassle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Memory mapped I/O hassle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Problem defenition - Erik | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Memory mapped I/O hassle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Automatic up I/O update - Russell | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Memory mapped I/O hassle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Memory mapped I/O hassle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Memory mapped I/O hassle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Memory mapped I/O hassle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Memory mapped I/O hassle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Syntax - Anders, Rob, Charles | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Syntax - Anders, Rob, Charles | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Problem solved - Russell | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Syntax - Anders, Rob, Charles | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Syntax - Anders, Rob, Charles | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Memory mapped I/O hassle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thread can close happily![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |