??? 08/15/07 12:20 Read: times |
#143305 - Very true! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Maarten Brock said:
... the compiler could have eliminated it completely. If it hasn't you were just lucky. As it's specifically an embedded compiler, I think Keil might be smart enough to spot this - but, in general, you're quite right. Just another reason why one should not write timing loops in 'C' It is left as an exercise for the student to consider how the 'volatile' keyword might be applicable here... |
Topic | Author | Date |
ADC Problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Circuit ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Clarify? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Crosspost | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Clarification | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Still no circuit | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Power supply | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What about the adc lowbyte ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Power Supply | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Power supply | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Power Supply | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
ADC lowbyte | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
sorry for confusing you but | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thanks for the time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
mmmhhh one more time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
LCD code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
No majic | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
delay | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Writing Timing Loops in C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Lucky | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Very true! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Your adc value must be 123. { | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Power Supply Problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
We can not see what you are looking at | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
current limiting power supply? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Power Supply | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Power Supply | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
ADC0804 with 8051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Start a new thread! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Sorry Dude!!!![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |