> Ain't the "volatile" version work for both version ? I reported the bug to kyle via Jallist, although I got no response. He's not around much these days.
If you are using the 512 byte buffer, you must uncommon the correct lines in my lib. volatile doesn't work on 2.4n and no volatile doesn't work on 2.4o (for my lib only). In 2.4o, if you don't use volatile, the arrays seem to disappear... ram space gets reduced by 512 bytes on compile. > I can see the following comments (I changed 2.40 -- zero -- to 2.4o -- > letter o--): please feel free to fix typo's like this. > We could also ask Kyle to add an internal compiler function used to identify > current used version while compiling in order to react differently. I agree! Matt. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
