Richard Erlacher wrote: > See below, please. > updated code, would work perfectly well, too. (using the ter "perfectly" > rather loosely)
I think 'quite adequately' would be more accurate! > straight-lined bit of code, whichever seems appropriate. Of course, I > couldn't do that with the SDCC assembler, as it doesn't support macros, so > another mechanism would have to be used. You are using one tool out of a chain, that chain being specifically a 'Small Device C Compiler'. As it's sole reason for existing is to compile C code into something that an MCU can use, why on earth would it support macros? If you want an assembler for the target MCU there are a number of options available, usually from the manufacturer of the MCU at little or no cost. Some of them even support macros! Why keep on about the assembler within the SDCC tool chain not fitting your narrow perspective of the world when it obviously was designed to fit another (and possibly just as narrow) set of requirements? Unless I miss the mark more than usual, your background, training and experience would give you a pretty good head start over many others in writing documentation. How about using it to pull together what is now available on SDCC? Keeping in mind that it is a 'Small Device C Compiler', use that as a basis to test (in C and using the whole tool chain) the accuracy of that documentation, develop corrections for it and expand on it. There will be quite a few people who will be grateful for such an effort. Art C ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
