89C51ED2
in [Design]
|
From: TT_Man on 6 Sep 2008 18:32 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:8c66ce04-05cb-4d18-b1e5-5e11c38987d7(a)w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 6, 4:24 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: >> MooseFET wrote: >> > Eeyore wrote: >> > > MooseFET wrote: >> > > > Eeyore wrote: >> > > > > MooseFET wrote: >> >> > > > > > Is it written in ASM or C? >> >> > > > > I think he said it was all written in asssembler <yuk>. >> >> > > > On an 8051, asm is really the way to go. The OP was making >> > > > comments >> > > > about DPTR so I suspected asm but vagueness of his descriptions >> > > > sounded like a C programmer who doesn't really know what is going >> > > > on >> > > > under the hood. Many C compilers overlay variables on the 8051 if >> > > > he >> > > > is doing interrupts in C code he may be running a routine in the >> > > > interrupt code that overlays one of his variables. >> >> > > I still use PL/M 51. So easy to use. You can treat it as highish >> > > level language and >> > > set a register directly in the next line. >> >> > > I can't even begin to imagine coding some of the fairly complex (for >> > > microcontrollers) >> > > stuff that we did with 8051s in asm. The mind boggles. Never mind >> > > code maintenance. >> >> > I do it all the time. It takes less time to write the code than to >> > design it. Any competent engineer can maintain it. >> >> I'll send you some code shall I ? > > Only if this code was written by a competent engineer and you also > send money. I don't work for free. > > >> ASM is for twits, the clueless, poor and morons mainly AFAICS. > > I guess this is where we will part company on this subject. Me too........
From: TT_Man on 6 Sep 2008 18:36 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> .EQU GFLAG,B.7 ;GAME FLAG, 1=GAME OVER, 0=GAME ON >>>> >> >> >> .EQU PCON,H'87 ;POWER CONTROL REGISTER >> >> .EQU EECON,H'0D2 ;EEPROM SFR >> >> .EQU AUXR1,H'0A2 > > All the more reason NOT to use assembler ! > > Did I see any SFRs in there? If so I missed them. > > Graham > > yes you did miss them, and many more not included for commercial reasons.....
From: MooseFET on 6 Sep 2008 20:30 On Sep 7, 6:29 am, "TT_Man" <Some...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > "MooseFET" <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote in message > [....] > > > The timing related problem will only show if you have external inputs > > other than the clock and reset pins. The true false boundary varies > > from chip to chip and run to run. > > All inputs are flagged and re checked 25 ms later, If true , a flag change > is set.... It could be a narrow window of timing that is causing the problem. Try changing the clock speed just a a little and see if the problem goes away.
From: nospam on 6 Sep 2008 22:21 "TT_Man" <Someone(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >> Only if this code was written by a competent engineer and you also >> send money. I don't work for free. >>> ASM is for twits, the clueless, poor and morons mainly AFAICS. >> >> I guess this is where we will part company on this subject. > >Me too........ Funny, this week I spent two days porting 5000 lines of C from an 8051 to a 16bit PIC. The PIC is vastly superior to an 89C51ED2 in almost every respect including being less than half the price. If back in 1994 when I started on the first version of those 5000 lines I had chosen to write in assembler I would be feeling a bit of a clueless twit this week and probably for another month or two. --
From: Spehro Pefhany on 6 Sep 2008 22:56
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:23:00 +0100, the renowned Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Spehro Pefhany wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> >Rich Grise wrote: >> > >> >> If I could get an 8051 equivalent but with Motorola's timer system (see >> >> 68HC11, e.g.), I'd be in hog heaven. ;-) >> > >> >What's so great about Motorola's timers ? >> >> Much better designed. > >In any specific way ? The only thing I might like in 8051 family timers is more >than 16 bits. > >Graham For example, they added a little clump of hardware that latches the low order byte of a timer in a hidden register when you read the high order byte... which effectively makes a 16-bit timer read an atomic operation on an 8-bit processor, without ugly tests and fixes. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |