89C51ED2
in [Design]
|
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka on 10 Sep 2008 00:19 Eeyore wrote: > LCALLS are longer. I'm sure of it. 3 vs 2 cycles IIRC. Unless that's been changed too. (Back to my 1990 Intel databook) Sorry, they both take 2 cycles. If it used to be different, it changed before 1990. LCALL is three bytes but only two cycles. In the vanilla Intel part, there are 6 states (2 clocks each) per machine cycle, so there's ample opportunity to do two fetches and assemble a 16 bit address in two cycles. -- Gordon S. Hlavenka Join the Revolution at http://www.ronpaul.com
From: krw on 10 Sep 2008 07:49 In article <48C5F4AA.91E99A8E(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > There is nothing wrong with PL/M, other than there is hasn't been > > support for it for a quarter century. > > What would it need support for ? Bugs (the OS variety, if nothing else). I don't use orphanware on new projects. I don't need to add risk to projects. -- Keith
From: krw on 10 Sep 2008 07:49 In article <48C5F44B.13EEA5CA(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > You don't do subroutines or interrupts? > > declare procedure XYZ interrupt(1) using 1; (register bank 1) MAIN defaults to > register bank zero. > > code > > end; > > > For example. The interrupt number defines the int source. Return address? USING only declares the register bank, it doesn't set it. -- Keith
From: MooseFET on 10 Sep 2008 09:38 On Sep 10, 7:49 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > In article <48C5F44B.13EEA...(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > krw wrote: > > > > You don't do subroutines or interrupts? > > > declare procedure XYZ interrupt(1) using 1; (register bank 1) MAIN defaults to > > register bank zero. > > > code > > > end; > > > For example. The interrupt number defines the int source. > > Return address? USING only declares the register bank, it doesn't > set it. I think PLM always loads the PSW in an interrupt routine. It has been a while since I looked at the resulting code form PLM but it rarely contains outright mistakes. It sometimes does an unneeded operation or two. > > -- > Keith
From: Eeyore on 10 Sep 2008 11:10
krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > krw wrote: > > > > > There is nothing wrong with PL/M, other than there is hasn't been > > > support for it for a quarter century. > > > > What would it need support for ? > > Bugs (the OS variety, if nothing else). I don't use orphanware on > new projects. I don't need to add risk to projects. Which bugs would those be ? The product is so mature it's untrue. Graham |