??? 11/24/05 22:09 Read: times |
#104136 - Thanks, and a tip Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Tom Paden said:
Ian: Interesting thoughts on your pages. I'll have to look harder at TTPCS. It sounds like what I did on the '51-based products, and maybe it's the way I should continue.tom Thanks. I have found there are many real time applications that need to be accurate but they do not need to be particularly fast. For these, something like TTPCS is quite satisfactory and has advantages over a simple superloop. For applications that need to respond very quickly, interrupts are a must and for many relatively simple, fast applications a basic foreground/backgound approach is adequate. However, it is all to easy to forget that using interrupts instantly brings potential problems with shared data (see other discussions on this topic elsewhere on this board) which TTPCS inherently avoids. I am currently working on adding a single interrupt to TTPCS. Good Luck. Ian |