Hi, David,

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:24:16 +0530, David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So? Why did *you* change compilers if the old one did what you wanted?
> If it doesn't do what you want then its your choice whether to change
> your code to conform or to revert to the compiler that did what you
> want.

If you're interested, I've reverted back to the older compiler version.

>> Of course, there's no disputing that. But the delay loop is just an
>> example, of how simple ,intuitive code can throw the compiler into a
>> tizzy.
> Avr-gcc *has* a delay loop that the compiler recognizes and leaves
> alone. You've been told about <util/delay_basic.h> yet you have written
> more email than the amount of code you would have to change to use it.

Read again the lines preceding your comment. It's not just about a delay loop.

My 'problem' triggered a discussion 37 posts long (so far). Of which mine were 
just 6 (including the one that triggered the discussion). So the fact that 'I 
wrote more email than code' is incorrect.

I may be stupid & stll 'learning' as compared to other older members(who I 
highly respect), but, I beleive I'm entitled to politely express my opinion.

It's true I had a different understanding of compiler working (which others 
have made efforts to correct).

Does this deserve a attack from you at a personal level?

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

AVR-GCC-list mailing list

Reply via email to