Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)


 

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
Andy Neil
06/16/09 12:35
Read: 131 times
Basingstoke
Uk


 		 #166148 - No, that's precisely where you're wrong
Responding to: David Prentice's previous message
David Prentice said:
Having done the single calibration

No!

You have absolutely no guarantee whatsoever as to precisely what code the compiler will generate!
Therefore you have to check the calibration after every single re-build to ensure that it is still valid.

So you might just as well write it in assembler in the first place, and be done with it.

It isn't hard - see the linked instructions in: http://www.8052.com/forum/read/162556


List of 30 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
s/w delay function      Sandeep Gupta      06/02/09 00:50      
   Software loops can be optimized away      Per Westermark      06/02/09 01:07      
   lacks side-effects      Neil Kurzman      06/02/09 01:07      
      First time with LINT?      Andy Neil      06/02/09 01:19      
   lacks side-effects      Andy Neil      06/02/09 01:07      
      That does not mean it is an error.      Neil Kurzman      06/02/09 01:12      
      It also blocks      Jez Smith      06/02/09 01:49      
   How to post legible source code      Andy Neil      06/02/09 01:13      
   DELAY_0.1.ZIP Useful?      Murray R. Van Luyn      06/14/09 22:11      
      That doesn't help, and it won't work anyhow!      Andy Neil      06/15/09 01:54      
         I stand by it.      Murray R. Van Luyn      06/15/09 19:21      
            Yes a delay function is useful      David Prentice      06/16/09 02:39      
               wrong !!!!      Erik Malund      06/16/09 08:46      
               No, that's precisely where you're wrong      Andy Neil      06/16/09 12:35      
            How can you say that?      Andy Neil      06/16/09 12:43      
               I think you should read Murray's comments      David Prentice      06/16/09 15:20      
                  I have seen ...      Erik Malund      06/16/09 15:45      
                     Timers usable without start/stop too        Per Westermark      06/16/09 16:30      
                        free-running counter/timer      Andy Peters      06/18/09 17:30      
                           Unsigned integers      Per Westermark      06/18/09 17:39      
                              re: unsigned      Andy Peters      06/19/09 12:16      
                                 Try unsigned subtraction with borrow      Per Westermark      06/19/09 13:05      
                                 bug in second (improved!?) code block      Andy Peters      06/19/09 16:38      
   Delay Loops in 'C'..!!! NO      Mahesh Joshi      06/16/09 05:44      
      Go on. Suggest a SIMPLE alternative      David Prentice      06/16/09 06:20      
         My Methods      Mahesh Joshi      06/16/09 07:21      
            So he has a long list of constraints      David Prentice      06/16/09 07:46      
               oh boy what a load who wil have 10 minutes for this      Erik Malund      06/16/09 08:55      
                  Ok. I was being naughty.      David Prentice      06/16/09 10:28      
                     you forget the obvious ...      Erik Malund      06/16/09 10:49      

Back to Subject List