| ??? 03/16/07 09:02 Read: times |
#135087 - yep but... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
For short delays the overhead for setting up a hardware timer is too much compared to the overall delay time.Anyway i know it is just the way things work but I am right and everyone else is wrong ;P~~~~ it should leave my loops alone without me having to twiddle them. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| akkkk! stupid compilers, something to watch | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ehm, isn't it the user? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well it might be phooey;- but its pretty common | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have you considered using a timer, perhaps... :-) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yep but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sorry - not this time, Jez | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if it is THAT short... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe not... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Beware. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well, any compiler with half a brain does that. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| volatile | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| use util/delay.h and read the lib documents | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| optimization = lost control | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| well that is the first mistake | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| First mistake is using a HLL | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Optimise & kill code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| optimizers and NASA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| There are many levels in Keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not always a good idea | 01/01/70 00:00 |