| ??? 02/24/05 10:50 Modified: 02/24/05 10:54 Read: times |
#88299 - then maybe "user's friendly"? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
In fact, a '51 assembler would absolutely do without the predefined '51 SFR names (e.g. ACC, PSW, B, P0-P3, SBUF etc.), but somehow all of them (at least I know) do have them.
What I think Oleg wanted to say is, that some "modern" assemblers do have predefined '52 SFR names, either implied, or using some directive. As a matter of fact, Keil's assembler does none of these. Or, maybe, using some IDE forces/suggests you some default include/header files depending on the derivative you are using (I think this is the way Keil's uVision does). Or maybe links it silently. This all can be done and indeed is done for sake of simplicity from user's point of view (although I don't like this approach "use this bunch of software, it knows better than you what to do and does it for you automatically"). Jan Waclawek |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Which Compiler supports Timer 2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do by hands | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Keil? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Alternative | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| indeed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nothhing to do with Modern! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| then maybe "user's friendly"? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| (in)Convenience | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| right | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Ah yes... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| workaround? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hands | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| *ALL* Compilers! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re:Which Compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sure, but why - and it is risky | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SFR | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| agreed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a plethora of derivatives | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| more on Keil asm | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Keil - NOMOD51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| define it | 01/01/70 00:00 |