Den 13-03-2011 16:37, Florian Klämpfl skrev:
Am 13.03.2011 16:34, schrieb Jonas Maebe:
On 13 Mar 2011, at 16:31, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 06.03.2011 22:46, schrieb Jeppe Johansen:
Further, a future benefit of using the interrupt keyword could be
generation of procedure exit code. Some platfo
Am 13.03.2011 16:34, schrieb Jonas Maebe:
>
> On 13 Mar 2011, at 16:31, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>
>> Am 06.03.2011 22:46, schrieb Jeppe Johansen:
>>> Further, a future benefit of using the interrupt keyword could be
>>> generation of procedure exit code. Some platforms need a special "return
>>> f
On 13 Mar 2011, at 16:31, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 06.03.2011 22:46, schrieb Jeppe Johansen:
>> Further, a future benefit of using the interrupt keyword could be
>> generation of procedure exit code. Some platforms need a special "return
>> from exception/interrupt" instructions at the end of
Am 06.03.2011 22:46, schrieb Jeppe Johansen:
> As I wrote a while back, I would like to make it easier to handle
> interrupts when using fpc for embedded work
After reading the related discussion, I think the approach is fine.
> Further, a future benefit of using the interrupt keyword could be
>
In our previous episode, Jeppe Johansen said:
> > the name of the interrupt routine is hardwired to the table entry. This
> > allows to get rid of the number constants (which are maintained centrally)
> > all together.
> >
> > It also allows to keep code portable between different versions that mig
Den 07-03-2011 13:49, Marco van de Voort skrev:
In our previous episode, Jeppe Johansen said:
A better idea, I think, is to use the old interrupt procedure directive.
For some embedded platforms simply allow also specifying a interrupt
vector/index after the interrupt keyword. Ex:
procedure USA
In our previous episode, Jeppe Johansen said:
> A better idea, I think, is to use the old interrupt procedure directive.
> For some embedded platforms simply allow also specifying a interrupt
> vector/index after the interrupt keyword. Ex:
>
> procedure USARTRxInterrupt; interrupt 10;
> begin
>
Den 07-03-2011 09:43, Mark Morgan Lloyd skrev:
Jeppe Johansen wrote:
As I wrote a while back, I would like to make it easier to handle
interrupts when using fpc for embedded work
The current solution is to use procedure variables with indirect
jumps in inline assembler. While that works okay it
Jeppe Johansen wrote:
As I wrote a while back, I would like to make it easier to handle
interrupts when using fpc for embedded work
The current solution is to use procedure variables with indirect jumps
in inline assembler. While that works okay it takes up a lot of space on
devices with lots o
At 06:19 PM 3/6/2011, waldo kitty wrote:
On 3/6/2011 16:46, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
A better idea, I think, is to use the old interrupt procedure directive. For
some embedded platforms simply allow also specifying a interrupt vector/index
after the interrupt keyword. Ex:
procedure USARTRxInterrup
On 3/6/2011 16:46, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
A better idea, I think, is to use the old interrupt procedure directive. For
some embedded platforms simply allow also specifying a interrupt vector/index
after the interrupt keyword. Ex:
procedure USARTRxInterrupt; interrupt 10;
begin
// Handler code
end
As I wrote a while back, I would like to make it easier to handle
interrupts when using fpc for embedded work
The current solution is to use procedure variables with indirect jumps
in inline assembler. While that works okay it takes up a lot of space on
devices with lots of interrupts, and intro
12 matches
Mail list logo
