You had already answered that question in an earlier post here is the quote: "I'm going to have a go at patching the compiler to get rid of it either altogether, or make it be controlled by the -Wno-deprecated-declarations switch. Or maybe I'll enable the -Wno-deprecated switch for C and use that. I should just grit my teeth and live with the warning, but where's the fun in that? " I don't use these type switches (I use show me all warnings, but I realize that warnings are just that, warnings). Since I don't use them, I didn't know if they existed or not. Sounds like you have proposed to have such a switch. Either way. Another solution could be to have the serial handler IRQ throw another IRQ when certain conditions warrant them. Then have that IRQ handler be set to wakeup. I am not trying to say the way you are doing it is wrong, or anything like that, I'm just trying to come up with alternatives. You didn't fully describe what you were doing in the first message, so I had no way to know the "message" was 100 bytes, etc. Of course you wouldn't wake up for every byte in that case. -Mark
-----Original Message----- From: mspgcc-users-ad...@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:mspgcc-users-ad...@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Grant Edwards Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 12:24 PM To: mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Mspgcc-users] Re: How to exit from low power mode? On 2006-03-20, Stokes, Mark <msto...@idexcorp.com> wrote: > That's a silly statement, the build code is exactly the same. > One has a warning, one doesn't. I always set up my Makefiles so that any compiler warning is considered an error. I don't ship code with warnings. You may think that's silly, but I'm convinced that I've prevented quite a few bugs by turning on all (or nearly all) of the compiler warnings and fixing all of the warnings. > And if you only want to wake for a serial IRQ, That's not what I said. I only want to wake up from the IRQ _conditionally_. For example: I want to wake up when the receive frame is complete. I only want to wake up after the last byte of a message. I don't want to wake up for every byte in the message. I only want to wake up after an entire message has been received. > then put the wakeup in the serial IRQ handler. That would wake up the processor for every single byte in the message. The processor doesn't need to wake up until after an entire message has been received. > If that's still not good enough, then have the main code > retest for "time to wakeup" and if it fails, just go to sleep > again. Wake the processor up on every byte of a 100 byte message just so it can go back to sleep the first 99 times? That's ugly, and it's burning power. Waking the processor when the message is complete is the right way to do it. Not allowing warnings in production code is the right thing to do. Fixing the compiler to allow things to be done the right way took less time than explaining this. >>> That's why there are compiler switches that allow certain >>> warnings to be ignored. >> >> Which compiler switch disables that warning? I notice you haven't answered that question yet. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! My nose feels like a at bad Ronald Reagan movie... visi.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
