89C51ED2
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 10 Sep 2008 11:13 krw wrote: > 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. Uh ? Bloody well does unless you have a different understanding of 'does' to me. Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Sep 2008 11:15 krw wrote: > Return address? Why the heck would I care about that ? Never used a HLL ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Sep 2008 11:21 MooseFET wrote: > krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > 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. That sounds right to me. It gets into the interrupt routine quite quickly. > It has been a while since I looked at the resulting code form PLM but it rarely > contains outright mistakes. Never seen one. > It sometimes does an unneeded operation or two. Possibly. I've timed a moderately complex interrupt that included some 16 bit math and compares and it could complete it in 80us with a 12MHz cystal. That's the 6/12 cycle original 80C51 design too. Use a new one @ 33MHz and the 2 cycle operations and it would be 5 us or so. Graham *cycle is the wrong word but you know what I mean.
From: krw on 10 Sep 2008 21:35 In article <48C7E34F.2D624C4D(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > 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. Try reading. I can't take the risk of bugs cropping up in unsupported software. If there are no bugs in the compiler (don't believe it) Windows will install them. -- Keith
From: krw on 10 Sep 2008 21:36
In article <48C7E40F.1F3FAE9B(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > 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. > > Uh ? Bloody well does unless you have a different understanding of 'does' to me. Not when I was using Intel's software. USING was only a directive to get the compiler to point R0-7 to the right place. It didn't actually load the pointers selecting the bank. -- Keith |