AVR-Chat

At 09:59 AM 6/16/2005, Paul Maddox wrote:
>Dave,
>
> > I was thinking that it was a 256 WORD table, which it isn't.
>
>ahh, fair point then.
>
> > So, the added proviso that it has to reside in the bottom 64k to work
> > with the simple instruction set.
>
>well, the dvice wasn't stated..
>given the fact that the preffered soloution was some hard wired soloution,
>also implies that the device wasn't already soldered into a PCB and insdie
>an existing product.

I wouldn't say that was the preferred solution, but just the fastest one.



>Perhaps a good example of why poorly defined problems lead to 
>confusing results :-)

Well, we just need to understand the limitations and compromises of 
these tricky approaches to problems.