| ??? 11/19/04 14:23 Read: times |
#81506 - Interrupt Routines Responding to: ???'s previous message |
In continous read mode with C code it was taking approx 180 Machine cycles I thinks with assembly I will be able to reduce this time required.
Make sure you don't embarrass yourself by writing an assembly routine that's larger than a well-written C routine. That seems to be a common theme these days. When it comes to the things you say are done in the ISR, there should be no real difference between the code generated by the C compiler and what you can write in assembler. Unless, the C code is poorly designed or poorly implemented. Jon |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Interrupt Function Prototype & Keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re: Interrupt Function Prototype & Keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No Parameters | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ASM vs 'C' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Interrupt Routines | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Assembly code no better than keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| efficient C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hardware IIC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I2C(C) = I2C(asm) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C-asm delay | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
OSC_FREQ | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no need for prototypes! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Same | 01/01/70 00:00 |