So, I am trying to put together two (rather involved) functions that calculate the DAC. My processing routine for CalcDAC1 and CalcDAC2 are more or less the same, but with different variables. Currently, I'm using global variables that are directly called from the routine. I would like to use the same functionality but send it the variables I want the program to use to process so instead of:
global variables: unsigned int var1a; unsigned int var2a; unsigned int var3a; unsigned int var1b; unsigned int var2b; unsigned int var3b; void main(void) { while(1) { CalcDAC1(); CalcDAC2(); } } void CalcDAC1(void) { //Do stuff with var1a //Do stuff with var2a //Do stuff with var3a } Void CalcDAC2(void) { //Do stuff with var1b //Do stuff with var2b //Do stuff with var3b }
I instead would like to do
void main(void) { while(1) { CalcDAC(var1a, var2a, var3a); CalcDAC(var1b, var2b, var3b); } } void CalcDAC(unsigned char var1, unsigned char var2, unsigned char var3) { //Do stuff with var1 //Do stuff with var2 //Do stuff with var3 }
Unfortunately, my particular function has about 7-10 variables (complicated equation with lots of variables) so it requires me to create a LOT of local variables for each iteration, which I don't have the local space for (if that's the right term). Instead, I would like to send it pointers to local variables (if possible).
I ASSUME it would look something like this:
void main(void) { while(1) { CalcDAC(*var1a, *var2a, *var3a); CalcDAC(*var1b, *var2b, *var3b); } } void CalcDAC(unsigned char *var1, unsigned char *var2, unsigned char *var3) { //Do stuff with var1 //Do stuff with var2 //Do stuff with var3 }
Is this correct or is this even possible in C? Is this something you can only do in C++? Any help with implementation you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
I meant what software you used that was so INFERIOR, not superior (you had mentioned that you used a lot of abysmal software).
Nothing you are likely to run into, nothing with widespread use, things like e.g. J1708 analyzers (costly), some ICEs(costly), most freeware I have tried, ....
Erik
Any chance you've tried Atmel Studio or Microchip MPLab? Both of those are examples of free software that are functional and look good. To be fair, I am pretty familiar with Atmel Studio so it's my basis of comparison for most development platforms, which is partially the reason why I'm disappointed by the layout and implementation of Keil. I do like some of the features of Keil (like the built in UART analyzer) but there are some things that are completely frustrating about it (like if you add in a line of code, it moves all your breakpoints so the breakpoints aren't actually pointing to a specified line of code but rather the line the code is placed on, which seems a bit ridiculous to me).
Regardless, I look at free software like Atmel Studio that manages to be functional (sometimes more so than Keil) and looks good and don't really understand why Keil, who charges $3k for software, can't update the looks of the software. But then again, I guess Atmel makes up their software costs from the money they make on their hardware so I guess it's not exactly comparing apples to apples.
Like you said, if it's functional, looks don't matter all that much but if you have a good piece of software, it would be nice to have it look updated as well. But I guess your (or someone else's) explanation on further driving up costs makes sense as well. Oh well.
Both of those are examples of free software that are functional and look good. Free??? they are paid for by a charge to the cost of the chips.
I guess it's not exactly comparing apples to apples. agreed, wrote the above before I read this line
Like you said, if it's functional, looks don't matter all that much but if you have a good piece of software, it would be nice to have it look updated as well. But I guess your (or someone else's) explanation on further driving up costs makes sense as well. Oh well. It really is a case of where you want the developers to use their budget. I, personally, consider using budget (unless you have 'excess') to work on 'look', when you have other things to improve, totally wrong.
Budgeting 'look' really is a matter of competition and/or "user sophistication". If the competition is equally good and 'looks' a lot better any company will work on it. In some areas of software (specifically what is geared towards the non-sophisticated user) 'look' has a high priority.