| ??? 05/16/09 15:56 Read: times |
#165416 - architectual Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I don't see a problem with a compiler seeing the 'const' keyword for a global or static variable, and deciding to move the data into the code
in the '51 architecture different instructions are used to access 'const' and 'code'. Erik |
| 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 |