On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 17/04/2012 13:44, Peter Bigot wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM, David Brown
>> wrote:
>>> With gcc for the msp430, there is also a "critical" function attribute -
>>> you can put your critical accesses within a small static inli
On 2012-04-19, JMGross wrote:
> - Urspr?ngliche Nachricht -
> Von: Grant Edwards
> Gesendet am: 17 Apr 2012 21:40:59
>
> On 2012-04-17, JMGross wrote:
>
>>> Access to word members inside a packed struct is NOT done as a word
>>> read/write, but through a rather complex chainof operation,
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Grant Edwards
Gesendet am: 17 Apr 2012 21:40:59
On 2012-04-17, JMGross wrote:
>> Access to word members inside a packed struct is NOT done as a word
>> read/write, but through a rather complex chainof operation, because
>> the alignment of the struct and
On 18/04/2012 03:36, William Swanson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> You have to be particularly careful about read-modify-write codings.
>> The msp430 can do some of these actions atomically, but it is possible
>> that the compiler will split the actions up. For e
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
> You have to be particularly careful about read-modify-write codings.
> The msp430 can do some of these actions atomically, but it is possible
> that the compiler will split the actions up. For example, if you write
> "a += 1; b = a" then then
..@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 April 2012 8:48 AM
To: GCC for MSP430 - http://mspgcc.sf.net
Subject: Re: [Mspgcc-users] Stack push inside inline assembly
On Apr 17, 2012, at 3:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
> You've just been lucky.
In particular, gcc is pretty aggressive about optimizing
On Apr 17, 2012, at 3:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
> You've just been lucky.
In particular, gcc is pretty aggressive about optimizing away stack frames when
it can (putting local variables in registers, rather than explicitly on the
stack.) (I *think* this is NOT target specific…)
BillW
-
On 2012-04-17, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2012-04-17, JMGross wrote:
>
>> Access to word members inside a packed struct is NOT done as a word
>> read/write, but through a rather complex chainof operation, because
>> the alignment of the struct and therefore of the member is unknown.
>
> Why is the
On 2012-04-17, JMGross wrote:
> Access to word members inside a packed struct is NOT done as a word
> read/write, but through a rather complex chainof operation, because
> the alignment of the struct and therefore of the member is unknown.
Why is the alignment of a structure member unkown?
Unle
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Peter Bigot
Gesendet am: 17.April.2012 13:44:39
>> That should work. =A0Like many people (and all serious coding standards),
>> I don't like putting brackets in macros - but that's your choice.
>Nothing wrong with brackets in macros. Mismatched brackets
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 17/04/2012 13:44, Peter Bigot wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM, David Brown
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17/04/2012 09:53, Wayne Uroda wrote:
Hi,
I feel quite foolish asking the following question... Please don't jud
On 17/04/2012 13:44, Peter Bigot wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 17/04/2012 09:53, Wayne Uroda wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I feel quite foolish asking the following question... Please don't judge me
>>> too harshly...
>>>
>>> In my MSPGCC based system I have got the
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 17/04/2012 09:53, Wayne Uroda wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I feel quite foolish asking the following question... Please don't judge me
>> too harshly...
>>
>> In my MSPGCC based system I have got the following #defines which I use for
>> critical (
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Wayne Uroda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I feel quite foolish asking the following question... Please don't judge me
> too harshly...
>
> In my MSPGCC based system I have got the following #defines which I use for
> critical (interrupts disabled) access around volatile memor
On 17/04/2012 09:53, Wayne Uroda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I feel quite foolish asking the following question... Please don't judge me
> too harshly...
>
> In my MSPGCC based system I have got the following #defines which I use for
> critical (interrupts disabled) access around volatile memory which is
>
Hi,
I feel quite foolish asking the following question... Please don't judge me too
harshly...
In my MSPGCC based system I have got the following #defines which I use for
critical (interrupts disabled) access around volatile memory which is modified
by interrupt routines:
#define criticalStar
16 matches
Mail list logo
