| ??? 03/01/06 15:23 Read: times |
#110977 - Better? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
M Chitrakar said:
well...since I have to send continuous 10 bytes to the computer, I guess its better to wait for every byte to be send before sending next byte rather than that unintended *efficiency* of C code. I think the putchar() code is better if only a byte is to be send once a while, not a bulk of data.and do we also need to set the value of TL1 for serial communication like we do for TH1? if yes, with what value? Personaly I think neither is very good if you want to send 10 consequetive bytes to the computer. The serial transmission would far better be done in an interrupt. After all, that's what the TI flag was really meant for. Ian |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| putchar C51 serial communication problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Keil putchar source | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| putchar() reworded | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| TI | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks and here is my C code of asm... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| should be obvious | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| To be fair | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C gives higher performance! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Initial conditions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| waiting better than uninten effcy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Better? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Math? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What????? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no work to do unitl bytes send | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OK | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| or... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That is better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| i read about putchar() | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Try \Keil\C51\LIB\getkey.c | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Keil Library Source Files | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ok | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No and Yes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| but what about AT cmd | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
No | 01/01/70 00:00 |