Lpc2000

????????? ??????? wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:05:46 -0500
>  Tom Walsh <tom@...> wrote:
>  
>
>>Alex_Rambler wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>b> Just one data point, but: I'm a professional developer (30 years 
>>>s/w
>>>b> development experience from micros to mainframes).  Now working on 
>>>b> third LPC-based commercial product.  Compared Keil, IAR, and gcc 
>>>and 
>>>b> chose Rowley Crossworks (gcc-based).
>>>
>>>Oh, I can't hold out from the reply.
>>>I tried to use Crossworks in the begining to explore LPC2xxx.
>>>It ugly work with the structures. I tried to define T0MCR like
>>>struct:
>>>{{
>>>typedef struct
>>> { 
>>>   __REG32 MR0I :1;
>>>   __REG32 MR0R :1;
>>>   __REG32 MR0S :1;
>>>
>>>   __REG32 MR1I :1;
>>>   __REG32 MR1R :1;
>>>   __REG32 MR1S :1;
>>>   
>>>   __REG32 MR2I :1;
>>>   __REG32 MR2R :1;
>>>   __REG32 MR2S :1;
>>>   
>>>   __REG32 MR3I :1;
>>>   __REG32 MR3R :1;
>>>   __REG32 MR3S :1;    
>>>   __REG32      :4;    
>>>} __txmcr_bits;
>>>
>>>#define T0MCRbits (*(volatile __txmcr_bits *)0xE0004014)
>>>
>>>}}
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The only thing I am curious about is why you bounded your struct def 
>>inside a double code block?
>>
>>TomW
>>
>>    
>>
>It's only for code separation in this mail :-)
>
>  
>
Oh, well, convention has been to use a string of '=',  a string of 
dashes '-' has a meaning for some mail clients.  The braces also confuse 
things as they are a non-neutral character (code block).  The '=' sign 
has been pretty much used over the years to bound code examples, usually 
like this:

========= mycode.c ============
blah
blah
...
========== snip ==============

You may notice the effect that the '--' double dash does to the font of 
the signature below?  That is also another convention, '--' on a line by 
itself denotes "signature to follow".


TomW


-- 
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------------------------------------------