Hello, I was browsing through older posts that deal with the painful issue of portability (http://www.keil.com/forum/docs/thread8109.asp). I was (and still am) a big advocate of programming as much as possible conforming to the C standard, and having a layered structure that allowed "plugging-in" other hardware. But I have come to change my mind recently. I am reading the "ARM system developer's guide" (excellent book by the way. I'm reading it because I want to port some C167 code to an ARM9 environment) in which chapter 5 discusses writing efficient C code for an ARM. The point is, and it is fairly demonstrated, that even common, innocent looking C code can either be efficient of very inefficient on an ARM depending on specific choices made, let alone another processor used! So, if we are talking about squeezing every clock cycle out of a microcontroller - I do not believe that portability without ultimately littering the code is possible!
I even went to my boss at the time to complain but to no avail. but what can you expect from somebody that makes statements like this: "I won't ask him why he does not bother to run a static code analyzer, because then I will have less ammunition to bust his ass if it does wrong". shocking, really.
Please explain these two:
#define U16DC unsigned short xdata * data // data xdata #define U32DC unsigned long xdata * data // data xdata
Your U16DC seems to be a U16DX and your U32DC seems to be a U32DX.
thanx,
I evidently got an old uncorrected one.
I am working from home and much stuff has not ben made urrent
Erik