| ??? 05/13/09 20:35 Read: times |
#165307 - re: Responding to: ???'s previous message |
That is why I was confused. I was asked this question during a phone interview. I told him I use assembly language routines for predictable delay loops. The interviewer insisted on the STATIC VOLATILE method. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| C lang. question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Confused | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Did you get the job? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Do you _want_ the job? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Same same | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, that was exactly what I meant! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re:job | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OR | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I wouldn't have thought so? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Who knows | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not really applicable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Still missing the point. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| using 'const' for 'code' would be very bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two examples | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Different issues | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| architectual | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Actually irrelevant to the const keyword | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if it is irrelevant, then why ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Because they are not equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Exactly. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Standard mechanisms for extensions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| volatile applies to data - not functions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Delay loops in 'C' (or any other HLL) | 01/01/70 00:00 |