89C51ED2
in [Design]
|
From: donald on 12 Sep 2008 16:58 Rich Grise wrote: > 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 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dos Check the dates of MS/PC-DOS and DR-DOS. donald
From: krw on 12 Sep 2008 17:12 In article <5efbc333-aa10-425d-b797-6e906126df13 @r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, kensmith(a)rahul.net says... > On Sep 11, 3:05 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > [....] > > > 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. > > You can use R0-7 if you never absolutely address them as AR0-7. Which was my point. If they're addressed as memory address, no problem with USING or PSW bits set any wich way. > Since > all instructions that use the registers, use the bank selection, it > works nicely. The 64 / 32 = 32,32 divide uses every register. R0 > points to the 64 bit area and R1 points to the 32 bit area. The > others hold counters and saved pointers etc. > > -- Keith
From: krw on 12 Sep 2008 18:43 In article <pan.2008.09.12.20.21.22.326839(a)example.net>, rich(a)example.net says... > 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. The IBM versions of DOS were far better. -- Keith
From: krw on 12 Sep 2008 18:44 In article <_sOdnQIvUtt3SlfVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, donald(a)notinmyinbox.com says... > Rich Grise wrote: > > 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 > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dos > > Check the dates of MS/PC-DOS and DR-DOS. PC-DOS was from IBM. MS-DOS from M$. -- Keith
From: krw on 12 Sep 2008 18:46
In article <48CAAEC1.120C8F0C(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > 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 ? I wouldn't trust a kid out of Uni with any product firmware. > 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". He was obviously a crappy assembler programmer with no understanding of the 8051. -- Keith |