division by zero

Geez! Isn't there any exception/software interrupt thrown that we could catch?

Not for 8051 derivatives. I'm not sure about the 166 series, but you will need to go with a platform more complex than the 8051 if you want hardware-based exceptions.

Geez! Isn't there any exception/software interrupt thrown that we could catch?

Not for 8051 derivatives. I'm not sure about the 166 series, but you will need to go with a platform more complex than the 8051 if you want hardware-based exceptions.

Geez! Isn't there any exception/software interrupt thrown that we could catch?

Nope. You seem to believe that the '51 is a microprocessor, it is not, it is a microcontroller.

Erik

I don't believe the C166 has a hardware trap for this but division by zero causes the overflow bit to be set. I know the HC16 provides a hardware trap, I guess that makes it a microprocessor in Erik's eyes.

-Walt

Walt,

Yeah... In my opinion, the use of the word microcontroller has been muddied a bit to include anything that includes some built-in "peripherals." For instance, Motorola/Freescale dub the 68340 a microcontroller, but I think most people would have put that one squarely in the processor category. I think it just comes down to the 8051 being an architecture designed for simplicity.

I don't believe the C166 has a hardware trap for this but division by zero causes the overflow bit to be set.
same for the '51
I know the HC16 provides a hardware trap, I guess that makes it a microprocessor in Erik's eyes.
Nope, if a controller get a few gadgets, that's nice, if it does not, do not *** about it.

Erik

"In my opinion, the use of the word microcontroller has been muddied..."

I don't know that there was ever a hard-and-fast distinction between "controller" and "processor."

These days, I believe that Intel refer to the '386 as a "microcontroller" - that's just their view of market segmentation, rather than any specific architectural or functional distinction!