On Sunday 04 March 2007 14:21, Gavin Jackson wrote:
Another thing you may want to take a look at is the SPIF
flag on page 174 of the datasheet. It states that:
From what the datasheet says, your SPIF bit is never cleared
so you'll be overwriting the SPI data register contents before
they've
From: Graham Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Paddock wrote:
[...]
I don't see while(true){} being any different than for(;;){}
in this context, and while(true){} causes the Lint error
of evaluation of constant value boolean.
[...]
I can't see why Lint would consider this an error and for ( ; ;
On Friday 02 March 2007 21:29, Graham Davies wrote:
Bob Paddock wrote:
for(;;){} is a endless loop, how is until execution of that
block ends in any way. being fulfilled here?
The block begins with the open brace and ends with the close brace. The
block ends when control falls out of
Shouldn't the declaration of shift be OUTSIDE the for block (or in the
for expression). Otherwize, shift is always 1 and the if (0 == shift)
can be optimized away.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob Paddock
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007
On Friday 02 March 2007 18:42, Francesco Sacchi wrote:
Bob Paddock ha scritto:
you see that the last rjmp is jumping to the point where shift
is reinitialized with '1' (r18/r19).
Moving 'uint16_t shift = 1;' out of the for(;;){} and into
the top of main(){} makes the code work ok.
Bob Paddock wrote:
for(;;){} is a endless loop, how is until execution of that
block ends in any way. being fulfilled here?
The block begins with the open brace and ends with the close brace. The
block ends when control falls out of the bottom and for ( ; ; ) takes over
for the next
