So you're personally responsible for making the release? Couldn't someone
help you out to make it happen faster? If it would be of any help I have
some time... :)
/niklo
-Original Message-
From: Eric Weddington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 8 november 2005 23:59
To: Niklas Lövgren
On a new laptop windows xp SP2
Installed winavr 20050214 version 3.4.3
Took an existing project that ran under version 3.4.1
And tried to run make all under new install with the same makefile.
I get
make: ** no rule to make target 'Robot.o', need by Robot.elf stop
I added an additional tool
Hi Biill,
Took an existing project that ran under version 3.4.1
And tried to run make all under new install with the same makefile.
I get
make: ** no rule to make target 'Robot.o', need by Robot.elf stop
Compare the case of the filenames as they exist on your harddrive to
the case of the
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 21:25, Mike S. wrote:
Thanks for the reply Daniel O'Connor, but I usually don't use the
optimization until I try a couple of and optimization techniques. I
already had some bad experiences with the optimization in some Texas
Instruments DSPs...
If you don't tell GCC to do
From: David Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
People keep saying C isn't fast enough. I don't belive it. First
attempt:
#include avr/io.h
#define CLOCK_B (10)
#define BIT_B (11)
void
myjunk(uint8_t byte) {
uint8_t i;
for( i = 0 ; i 8 ; i++ ) {
PORTA |= CLOCK_B;
void write_data (Word towrite, Byte nbits)
{
Byte n;
for(n = 0; n nbits; n++)
{
CLK_HIGH;
if( towrite (0x0001 n))
{
SDIO_HIGH;
}
else
{
SDIO_LOW;
}
CLK_LOW;
}
}
This will give very slow code, because a left shift by a
You'll find this modification / correction helps with speed because you don't
have to evaluate (1n) each time through the loop. Only a single bit shift on
the 16-bit value is required.
#define ADS1210_PORT PORTF
#define SDIO_BIT 0x04 /* 0b 0100 PORTF.2*/
#define CLK_BIT 0x02 /*
Hi,
I think there are two problems with the code:
- using 16 bit data
- shifting by a variable number of bits
An optimization would be to write a funktion which only shifts up to 8
bit, and to shift the data every time by one bit.
Regards,
Nils
original code:
void write_data (Word towrite,
Dave Hylands wrote:
Hi Biill,
Took an existing project that ran under version 3.4.1
And tried to run make all under new install with the same makefile.
I get
make: ** no rule to make target 'Robot.o', need by Robot.elf stop
Compare the case of the filenames as they exist on your harddrive
As John Altstadt wrote:
This is the exact problem I reported a few months ago at
http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitemitem_id=13416
Yep, these auto tools are not very consistent. While they introduced
major backwards compatibility headaches to anyone using them, they
simply don't
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
As John Altstadt wrote:
This is the exact problem I reported a few months ago at
http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitemitem_id=13416
Yep, these auto tools are not very consistent. While they introduced
major backwards compatibility headaches to anyone using
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 09:00:58AM -0500, Dave Hansen wrote:
From: David Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
People keep saying C isn't fast enough. I don't belive it. First
attempt:
[...]
It might be tough to do better on AVR. My standard SPI routine uses a
do-while loop, which might save an
John Altstadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, these auto tools are not very consistent. [...]
I do have to say that in 20 years of designing large and small
embedded systems, I have never once felt the urge to use any
autotools. :-)
Sure, for just your own tool, you don't need that. But if
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
John Altstadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, these auto tools are not very consistent. [...]
I do have to say that in 20 years of designing large and small
embedded systems, I have never once felt the urge to use any
autotools. :-)
Sure, for just your own tool, you
14 matches
Mail list logo
