Lpc2000

Richard,

Can you explain why you think removing "const" gives the code 
a "better chance"? 

Regardless of whether the code is running from flash or RAM, if you 
leave out const in a declaration, you will be using up RAM, which if 
you have a lot of constant data is probably not a good idea. In 
general:

const int foo = 23; 

will be placed in a read-only section of memory (i.e. flash if built 
for flash), whereas:

int foo = 23;

will be placed in a read/write section (i.e. RAM) even if the code 
is built for flash. The initialiser value is also placed in a read-
only section and is copied in as part of the 'C' run-time 
initialisation.

You can override this behaviour by playing with compiler and/or 
linker options, but why bother when "const" does it for you?

Or am I misreading what you're suggesting?

Brendan

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, newmanrf@... wrote:
>
> 
> > Question:  Why get rid of const?  I would have thought you would 
still
> > want this
> > in flash.
> >
> 
> Robert,
> 
>     Yes your right. But for now it wont hurt him to remove it as 
if he is
> building for flash its there and if he is building for ram its 
still
> there. The idea is to get the code working first and removing that
> gives him a better chance... as long as he does not run out of ram 
if
> he is compiling to run out of ram. So for all of us that knows 
what it
> does and why leave it. If it looks funky to you comment it out. You
> will know that you need it eventually.
> 
> Richard Newman
> Pittsburgh PA USA
>