| ??? 04/26/07 14:02 Read: times |
#138021 - there is no such thing Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I need because I have to do things that should happen separate from the applicatio.
no, you don't. You can include them in the application. And these things HAVE to run paralel. There is no such thing, the processor process one thing at a time, That you may give them each a 'slice' does not make them run 'parallel' And I pray that '51 architecture can live with it ... Anyway if Keil managed to do an RTOS with scheduller for '51, why wouldn't it work for me I said "that is the easiest way" to kill a '51 not "it will" kill a '51. If inefficient coding was a reason for dismissal, the unemployment offices would be full of 'programmers' If you can live with all the time it takes to "switch task" removed from the time to do real work, then fine, but the theory that a task switcher makes thing more efficient is total and absolute baloney. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Serial transmission in scheduller instead of int | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| danger, maybe, loss of efficiency YES ABSOLUTELY!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| avoiding interrupts means... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Scheduller.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there is no such thing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Limitation API | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| API? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes ASIC design fixed... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| debug possibilities? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Monitor is nice idea | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 1ms vs 1.04ms | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| absolutely NOT | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ok but 1 byte is transmitted together | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if it does, then you need to KISS | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I took the 1ms processing tick for granted... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks for the inputs... | 01/01/70 00:00 |