CLOCK TOO SLOW AND MUST BE FASTER

I NEED THE PORCESSOR TO RUN AT 82MHZ BUT THE XTAL IS 13>7242MHZ

What processor ? What crystal ?

I LOOK IN UVISION AND CHANGE THE FREQ BUT IT DOESNT MAKE CHANGE IN CODE! HAVE I GOT A BUG?

Where in uVision did you change the frequency ? In the target settings dialog ? That doesn't do anything. If anything, you'll have to change it in the startup file.

I NEED THE PORCESSOR TO RUN AT 82MHZ BUT THE XTAL IS 13>7242MHZ

What processor ? What crystal ?

I LOOK IN UVISION AND CHANGE THE FREQ BUT IT DOESNT MAKE CHANGE IN CODE! HAVE I GOT A BUG?

Where in uVision did you change the frequency ? In the target settings dialog ? That doesn't do anything. If anything, you'll have to change it in the startup file.

YES THE XTAL IS 13.&242MHZ
YES I CHANGE FREQ IN TARGET AND IT DOESNOT DO IT
DO YOU HAVE THE SAME BUG?

Please stop writing in ALL CAPITALS!

There is no need for it, It's hard to read, and it's often considered shouting - therefore, rude.

can handle 82MHz is the SILabs f12x/f13x. so that must be the one you use. look at PLL0MUl.

I LOOK IN UVISION AND CHANGE THE FREQ BUT IT DOESNT MAKE CHANGE IN CODE! HAVE I GOT A BUG?
a) if you conmtinue SHOUTING, this will be my last post to you, if the caps lock key is stuck, get a new keyboard.
uVision does not do diddlysquat when you cnahnge the frequence, that is a code issue i.e. it is YOUR job.

Erik

SORRY - JOKE [HA HA HA]

i mean sorry

it is a st number psd934f2

but it runs slow and i need more speed

That's better - but whatever made you think ALL CAPITALS was a good idea in the first place?!

The XTAL setting in uVision is only there so that the simulator can convert its instruction-cycle counts into times in seconds - it has no effect whatsoever on the compiler, assembler, or linker.
Therefore, it has no effect whatsoever on the execution speed of your code!

How do you determine that "it runs slow"?

What, exactly, runs "slow"?

How much too "slow" is it?
How much "faster" does it need to be?

What steps have you taken to ensure that this isn't due to inefficiencies in your own code?

What optimisation settings are you using?

Have you read the chapter in the Manual on writing optimum code?
http://www.keil.com/support/man/docs/c51/c51_xc.htm

psd934f2 according to ST micro datasheet is a "configurable memory system on a chip for 8-bit microcontrollers"

and that obsolete chip has never neen intended for any use with a '51 other than a 'traditional' running at 12MHz.

Erik

ah yes - not to be confused with the modern uPSD range, which includes an 8051 in the package...

http://www.keil.com/dd/chips/stmicroelectronics/8051.htm