| ??? 04/15/05 19:26 Read: times |
#91694 - one more reason not to rely on testing Responding to: ???'s previous message |
If you don't, there's a 1 in 65536 chance that the timer will stop on the compare value that causes an interrupt.
Let's just say it causes a lot of interrupts when that happens ;-) One more reason not to rely on testing, catching that one in, say, testing 100 times is one chance in 65 No, I am not saying "do not test your product", of course not, what I am saying is do not let a piece of code go with the thought "if something is wrong, it will come out in the test" Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Bit Bang i2c | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You should | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Errr | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a slight problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I was | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Licence | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| call it SMB | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| maybe different | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Correction! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SETB SDA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| misunderstanding? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks to Atmel | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 'Stub' resistors missing? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pull ups ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not those... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Rp | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| IIC is owned by philips why not go there | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You're right! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Set port as input - NO SUCH THING! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh yes there is | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, but not here? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nowhere in the documentation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one more reason not to rely on testing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one more reason not to rely on testing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Catch 'em young ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes | 01/01/70 00:00 |