Lpc2000

Dear Brendan,

Please onsider inline assembly issues as separate from interworking
issues.  Lumping them together results in the type of problems that
you appear to find yourself in.

Take a moment, and consider if you can appreciate the purpose of my
on-the-fly example.  The fact that it looks like operational code is
incidental.  It is *not* a on size fits all solution.

You have peculiar requirements.  Write your own if this one will not
fit.  Have a go.  Avoid making ambit claims about what can and cannot
be done with the example in a hope that I will respond by providing
you the extension that will meet your peculiar requirements.

My on-the-fly example serves to demonstrate that:

b) the problem I originally extracted my requirements from (a code
that I attributed to Rowley Associates) can be solved by identifing
three primitives required;

b) each of these can be coded as inline assembly or external module as
one prefers, and I provided an inline assembly example, and using
inline functions; and

[Some here seem not to distinguish between the two different use of
"inline" attributes.]

c) using inline assembly, and letting the compiler know what you are
doing in these three primitives, you can take advantage of the merging
of the independent primitives, inline, efficiently as shown in the
final outcome.

I am not proposing that one should avoid procedure calls.  The example
I started with appears to suggest this is a requirement.  I thought of
a simpler way to achieve the same end result.  So I put it up as my
on-the-fly code.

I am not interested in your whining every time I point a simpler,
better, or for that matter, just another, way of doing things.

Have a good day.

Jaya

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "brendanmurphy37" <brendan.murphy@...>
wrote:

> Jaya,
> 
> I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. 
> 
> You present an example. I point out that it illustrates a point I'd 
> been making (about how using in-line assembler can cause unintended 
> problems as requirements change). You accuse me of not understanding 
> the original example.
> 
> If you're interested in a technical discussion, maybe you should 
> read what I actually said, and respond accordingly?
> 
> If all you're interested in is disparaging and insulting other 
> contributors, can I ask you to please stop? I've had more than 
> enough of it at this stage.
> 
> Best wishes
> Brendan