| ??? 04/26/11 08:12 Read: times |
#182048 - Andys statement stands Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Adding a _Bool data type does not say anything about any support for a bit data type. It just means that the compiler have a data type that it will protect from assigns of non-boolean results.
C++ have had "bool" for a great many years, without it being single-bit. And it wouldn't even be good for a specific C compiler to hard-code that _Bool should be a bit, in case the program needs more _Bool variables than what fits into the bit-addressable memory region - a program may then want to use _xdata _Bool which obviously can't be single-bit without the compiler introducing manual and/or operations. So it's important to separate booleans as a logic data type and bit as a storage type. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Sbit or Bit decalaration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Users Manual | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RTFM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| uC51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How to post links | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, really strange | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bool | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Andys statement stands | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nobody mentioned storage | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, I did - as did the OP [edited] | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two values still != single-bit data type | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Depends what you mean by "bit" ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| controller's pin | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why macros? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RTFM! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Was easy to locate | 01/01/70 00:00 |