Hi, David, On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:24:16 +0530, David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So? Why did *you* change compilers if the old one did what you wanted? > If it doesn't do what you want then its your choice whether to change > your code to conform or to revert to the compiler that did what you > want. If you're interested, I've reverted back to the older compiler version. > >> Of course, there's no disputing that. But the delay loop is just an >> example, of how simple ,intuitive code can throw the compiler into a >> tizzy. > > Avr-gcc *has* a delay loop that the compiler recognizes and leaves > alone. You've been told about <util/delay_basic.h> yet you have written > more email than the amount of code you would have to change to use it. Read again the lines preceding your comment. It's not just about a delay loop. My 'problem' triggered a discussion 37 posts long (so far). Of which mine were just 6 (including the one that triggered the discussion). So the fact that 'I wrote more email than code' is incorrect. I may be stupid & stll 'learning' as compared to other older members(who I highly respect), but, I beleive I'm entitled to politely express my opinion. It's true I had a different understanding of compiler working (which others have made efforts to correct). Does this deserve a attack from you at a personal level? Cheers, --Royce. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list