Lpc2000

Jaya,

I take your point about your example being illustrative only, and not 
intended as a workable solution to a particular problem.

I had hoped you would take my point of using your example as an 
illustration of the problems that can arise with in-line assembler. 

We're both doing exactly the same thing: using a particular example 
to make a point. They just happen to be different points.

I don't have any particular requirements, nor am I faced with a 
particular problem, and I'm certainly not looking for you to provide 
any solutions (I'm baffled as to how you could draw this conclusion).

Maybe you should read what I said again, with this clarification in 
mind?

Finally, I'd ask you once again to ease up on the disparaging and 
insulting language ("peculiar requirements", "whining" etc.). It adds 
nothing to your arguments, and simply turns people off.

Best wishes
Brendan

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "jayasooriah" <jayasooriah@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>