Lpc2000

Paul you should know by now that you'll never make Alex happy. he thinks 
the way he expects things to work IS the standard. Anything outside of 
that is a bug. A different user name can't hide his unique style.

Al

Paul Curtis wrote:

>Hi, 
>
>  
>
>>>You are very very confused...  You have absolutely no idea what
>>>"__REG32
>>>MR0I :1" means, do you???  It is obvious that you are 
>>>      
>>>
>>operating under  
>>    
>>
>>>some other understanding of just what it is that you wrote.
>>>
>>>Go have someone explain it to you, it would take too long 
>>>      
>>>
>>to do here.
>>
>>#define __REG32 unsigned long
>>
>>I only declare bit field. I can use uchar, or uint, it does't 
>>important for bit field declaration Any questions?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, it *does* matter.  The only *correct* usage when defining a
>bitfield is to use int or unsigned int -- if you use unsigned long or
>unsigned char when defining a bitfield, all bets are off because ISO C
>does not *define* what happens.
>
>Some compilers *do* define what happens when you use these types but
>that is an extension of the existing standard.  A useful extension to be
>sure, and something that might, one day, even make it into the standard
>(though I really do dobt that it will).
>
>There is a technical report (TR) which does not hold as much weight as a
>full standard that does define how to access I/O using C-language
>constructs.  You're bending the language and your interpretation to fit
>the hardware.
>
>That's all I'll say.  GCC doesn't do what you want it to do, you found a
>compiler that does, be happy.  :-)
>
>--
>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
>CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>