Lpc2000

At 02:43 PM 4/10/2006 +0100, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > From: "brendanmurphy37" <brendan.murphy@...>
> > I fear I'm repeating myself: the problem isn't that in-line assembler
> > doesn't work, the problem is that it is completely non-standard and
> > non-portable.
>Especially in embedded work, device drivers aren't portable
>whatever they are written in.

Portability, is about items other than porting code.  It's also about the 
portability of knowledge and skill.  It's about the portability of tools 
(editors, analyzers, generators etc..).  In this particular case it's also 
about limiting the egregious growth of languages (from 2 [C, ASM] to 3 {C, 
ASM and inline ASM]) :)


>When I look at where MPE (as opposed to its clients) uses in-
>line assembly, we find it in device-specific drivers, e.g. UART
>and Ethernet drivers, and in CPU specific sections, e.g.
>schedulers, where we are striving for performance. In our world,
>interrupt latency and task-switching speed really matter,
>regardless of CPU performance - the faster the CPU, the more we
>are asked to do with it.

Why not do them in assembly rather than inline?  I don't expect either of 
us to change the others mind but I am curious as to the reasoning.

Robert

" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,   be 
they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to chew a 
radio signal. "  -- Kelvin Throop, III
http://www.aeolusdevelopment.com/