Javier Almansa Sobrino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've noted a non volatile variable is like don't exists (I think).
A local variable can often be optimized by the compiler into a
register, and it will live there only for the short amount of time
when its value is really needed. It might not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Javier,
Javier Almansa Sobrino wrote:
Hi everybody. I've a little stupid question
What's the differece between a volatile variable in a funcion and the
same variable not volatile?
I've noted a non volatile variable is like don't exists (I think).
David Brown wrote:
You are missing a number of points ...
Well, I think we're getting close to complete coverage now!
On the subject of volatile isn't enough and straying further from AVR,
remember that if your machine has a data cache you need to figure out how to
not have the cache between
Graham Davies wrote:
David Brown wrote:
You are missing a number of points ...
Well, I think we're getting close to complete coverage now!
Well, since we are going for complete coverage, I'll add my 2 cents, then.
Sometimes I don't use volatile at all on the variables, and just use
From: Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Graham Davies wrote:
David Brown wrote:
You are missing a number of points ...
Well, I think we're getting close to complete coverage now!
Well, since we are going for complete coverage, I'll add my 2 cents, then.
You've opened some new cans of
Dave Hansen wrote:
From: Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Graham Davies wrote:
David Brown wrote:
You are missing a number of points ...
Well, I think we're getting close to complete coverage now!
Well, since we are going for complete coverage, I'll add my 2 cents,
then.
You've opened
One more suggestion...
If you are using global volatiles shared between an interrupt and
mainline code, interrupt handler performance may be improved by moving
the volatile into a temporary variable.
galen
volatile uint16_t counter;
SIGNAL(TMR0_OVERFLOW)
{
uint16_t tmp;
tmp =
From: Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Hansen wrote:
[...]
You've opened some new cans of worms here, but I'll only make one small
comment
I was afraid of that (the cans of worms, not your comment) ;)
Thanks for noticing the implied smiley. Looking at what I wrote, I'm not
sure it
Dave Hansen wrote:
From: Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
But you're actually wrong about the volatile not being needed. Because
the sei instruction doesn't claim anything about memory clobbers,
without volatile the compiler would be free to re-order instructions
and do the sei before
Hi. I have 3 main questions:
a) I think I found the patches I need to support the at90usbxxx
parts. Is this right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg01001.html
b) The email referenced above has a subject prefixed with [AVR][4.2].
As far as I know, the latest release of gcc is
On 12/16/06, Rick Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the long preamble. You can skip to the real question below...
I'm trying to build one of Atmel's USB samples (the generic HID
device) that targets the at90usb1287. According to the documentation,
it works with WinAVR 20060421, so at
11 matches
Mail list logo
