89C51ED2
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 11 Sep 2008 10:46 On Sep 11, 2:17 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > krw 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. > > > > > 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. > > > You remember wrong. USING tells the compiler what to assume is in the > > PSW.4, PSW.3 bits. In PLM it most likely also results in a move into > > the PSW. > > > In the ASM51, you could run with no declared bank by not putting a > > USING into the code. This is handy when you want to make code that is > > bank independent. > > > My 32 bit math library is bank independent so it can be used in > > interrupts etc. > > But you only used ASM51 not PL/M51 ? I have used PLM51 just enough to be able to say I've used it. I used PLM-80 and PLM-86 a great deal in the past. The language is almost exactly the same among them. In 8051 land, the only project I have seen that used PLM51 was abandoned. It did not result in a product. This was a fault of things other than the choice of the language. > > Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Sep 2008 14:49 MooseFET wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > MooseFET wrote: > > > > > Why stop at 33MHz. Use the Silabs 100MIPS 8051F120 and you'd be done > > > before you knew you'd started. > > > > > BTW: You really only get about 50 to 75 MIPS out of them. > > > > That'll be good enough for anything I'm likely to need. I managed some nice reverbs on a > 10 ? MIPS > DSP. > > I have to work on faster speeds from time to time. The signals are in > the 100s of KHz. > > I'd tell you what it is but .... Audio's not demanding in that way. I've been known to refer to it as 'moving DC'. Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Sep 2008 14:55 MooseFET wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > MooseFET wrote: > > > krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > krw 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. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > You remember wrong. USING tells the compiler what to assume is in the > > > PSW.4, PSW.3 bits. In PLM it most likely also results in a move into > > > the PSW. > > > > > In the ASM51, you could run with no declared bank by not putting a > > > USING into the code. This is handy when you want to make code that is > > > bank independent. > > > > > My 32 bit math library is bank independent so it can be used in > > > interrupts etc. > > > > But you only used ASM51 not PL/M51 ? > > I have used PLM51 just enough to be able to say I've used it. I used > PLM-80 and PLM-86 a great deal in the past. The language is almost > exactly the same among them. Absolutely. That was the whole point of it. And the associated OS was CP/M. > In 8051 land, the only project I have seen that used PLM51 was > abandoned. It did not result in a product. This was a fault of > things other than the choice of the language. Yes, well I've seen some shocking ASM51 too. With comments like "this seems to work". How some people manange to migrate from company to company leaving a trail of disasters behing them never fails to amaze me. I can happily say I fixed TWO runaways. Both became serious commercial successes after my intervention. One was primarily an analog fix, the other code (and coding method - a change to finite state machine from a flow chart that resembled Medusa's locks). Graham
From: krw on 11 Sep 2008 18:05 In article <48C8E0CD.E5DBDA3E(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > 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. > > Ir runs under DOS. ....assuming DOS still runs. You do like to take risks! -- Keith
From: krw on 11 Sep 2008 18:05
In article <bd5eba3e-b0ce-4b67-89d4-6f070dcc2949 @o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, kensmith(a)rahul.net says... > On Sep 10, 6:36 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > In article <48C7E40F.1F3FA...(a)hotmail.com>, > > rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > krw 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. > > > > > 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. > > You remember wrong. USING tells the compiler what to assume is in the > PSW.4, PSW.3 bits. Right, it doesn't actually point R0-7 to the appropriate hardware. > In PLM it most likely also results in a move into > the PSW. Not that I remember, though I didn't use PLM/51 very long. I saw no advantage over assembler, armed with suitable macros. > In the ASM51, you could run with no declared bank by not putting a > USING into the code. This is handy when you want to make code that is > bank independent. > > My 32 bit math library is bank independent so it can be used in > interrupts etc. As long as R0-7 isn't used there is no problem. -- Keith |