89C51ED2
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 12 Sep 2008 13:31 In article <48CA2BD3.AD7B2596(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > Which software ? > > > > PLM51 and ASM51. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > PL/M does it just fine. The compiler output shows you the register banks used so you > can check. > > > > Of course it show the USED register banks after USING. It doesn't > > necessarily have those banks ENABLED in the PSW. > > So how come it works then ? You're lucky? -- Keith
From: Eeyore on 12 Sep 2008 13:56 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > krw wrote: > > > 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! > > > > What a silly comment. DOS is the only stable product ever to come from Microsoft. > > You got a USB driver for DOS? Why would I need a USB driver for DOS itself ? > > NO risks whatever plus the compile time on a modern PC is in the blink of an > > eyelid. Shame really since even with fast ATs it was time enough to go get a > > coffee. > > > > I can remember when applications NEVER crashed. > > Irrelevant. That was then. And now. Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Sep 2008 14:02 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > >I saw noadvantage over assembler, armed with suitable macros. > > > > Speed of writing code. Excellent readability, no need to track memory freed by temporary > variables > resulting in superb memory usage, you name it > > No speed advantage at all, for a half-competent assembly programmer. You'd trust a kid out of Uni to be able to do that ? Let me tell you, there's a guy I know whose previous job was technical director of Pace microsystems (he's technical director somewhere else now) , the satellite and cable receiver box people. Because I was fairly heavily loaded he was asked as a then sideline (before Pace) to write the code for an app we had. He wanted to use one his favourite Mitsubishi uCs and write it in assembler. I TOLD him it would be an 80C51 and PL/M. At the end of the project he said "I understand why now". Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Sep 2008 14:05 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Which software ? > > > > > > PLM51 and ASM51. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > PL/M does it just fine. The compiler output shows you the register banks used so you > > > > can > check. > > > > > > Of course it show the USED register banks after USING. It doesn't > > > necessarily have those banks ENABLED in the PSW. > > > > So how come it works then ? > > You're lucky? In something like TEN projects ? Using ALL the banks ? Graham
From: Rich Grise on 12 Sep 2008 16:21
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:34:28 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > krw wrote: >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> > >> > Ir runs under DOS. >> >> ...assuming DOS still runs. You do like to take risks! > > What a silly comment. DOS is the only stable product ever to come from Microsoft. Actually, it didn't come from Microsoft. It came from Digital Reasearch; M$ just brokered the usurious deal with IBM that gave us the 8088 PC and all the rest. Cheers! Rich |