Thanks Rafael,
I'll test this later today.
You wrote: "partially emulate"
What do you mean by that, what __critical -functionality would
disabling all interrupt not emulate?
Or are you talking abou things like using a 'return/break' statement
inside
disabled section in which case of course the re-enabling of interrupts
would
not happen?
br Kusti
>>> rnei...@web.de 20.1.2009 10:45 >>>
Hi,
> But when I look at the compiled (assembler source code) I see no
> difference with or without the __critical keyword nor any evidence
> of any interrupt disabling code.
>
> So what am I doing wrong?
Errr, nothing: __critical is not implemented for the PIC ports.
You can partially emulate its effect by disabling interrupts
manually and see if that helps.
/* All code untested. */
iflags = (INTCON & 0xC0);
INTCON &= ~0xC0;
// critical code here
INTCON |= iflags;
or wrapped in a macro:
#define CRITICAL(CODE) do { \
static unsigned char __sdcc_iflags = (INTCON & 0xC0); \
INTCON &= ~0xC0; \
do { CODE; } while (0); \
INTCON |= __sdcc_iflags; \
} while(0)
CRITICAL(low = 1; high = 42);
// or
CRITICAL(critical_function());
Hope that helps,
Raphael
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
