On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 18:00 -0700, Derric Tubbs wrote: > I believe the original poster said he was new to > programming. If so, just remember that each hex digit > represents four binary bits/digits with decimal values > of 0-15. It won't take long at all to get where > reading hex, both for decimal value and bit pattern, > happens without thinking about it.
Yeah I am fairly new to C programming (only one year epxerience, on Microchip PIC's...and that was 5 years ago !), but not to electronics engineering, so I have long got the hang of Hex notation ;-) > Is there some reason you can't specify your constant > as hex? It's not that I can't, it' just that in some cases, a binary notation is natural, and a hex one doesn't make sense. Typical example is when I want to define a few custom characters for a text LCD module. if you use a binary notation, it actually gives you a very convenient visual representation of each character, since one bit represents a pixel, and one byte represents one row for one character. So you can very easily define the characters, whereas if using a hex notation, it's a nightmare to define the characters, and you can't check them visually for correctness, and making corrections is awkward. That's just an example. On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 20:03 -0500, David Kelly wrote: > We may make a FreeBSD user out of you yet. Not a ray of hope in the current state of things ;-) I happen to have eventually found the perfect Linux distro for me, so they would have to go seriously wrong for to consider the hassle of changing 'home' ;-) ... > Joerg included a/the patch for binary constants in the FreeBSD Ports > version of avr-gcc, which he maintains. > Oh, I wonder what we would become without Joerg. Thank you for the patch Herr Joerg :-) > If this long URL survives then it will download the patch. You are a > Linux user so you have lots of practice applying patches, right? :-) > > You said it, I am Linux "user", not developper !! ;o) I did once try to apply a patch to some program, but I failed miserably, both because I couldn't find anywhere on the web the exact command line to use, all where suggesting different options, and also because the source code I had didn't exactly match what the patch was expecting. Tried to apply the patch by hand, but the patch and source code were so different, I really didn't know what to do with the patch. > I guess I will just take the easy route, and wait patiently for the patch to make it into the next stable release of gcc-avr ;-) -- Vince _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list