David Brown wrote:
... you are ... protecting the code sequence, not the data itself - the
data is indirectly protected by always using
protected code sequences to access it.
I think this is just a point-of-view thing. I could be wrong, but I think
the prevalent point of view is that it is the data that needs to be
protected. Any means to do that would be acceptable. It seems strange to
talk about protecting the code sequence. Making sure that the code executes
in sequence and without interruption is just a means to the primary end of
protecting the data.
Graham.
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
