Just keep it as simple as possible :) Can you make a whole record volatile ? Would it make sense ? If not, you'd better use global variable with prefix. Record was just a suggestion.
cheers Seb 2012/4/15 Oliver Seitz <[email protected]> > * > > > Usually we have to prefix with lib name to avoid (eg. bigcal_month, > bigcal_hours, ...). But we can also use new jalv2 "record". This can be > nice to group namespace related variable. I had the same issue recently and > used them. Code IMHO is more readable, and from footprint is mostly the > same (if not the same). Unfortunately, proc/func can't be grouped in a > record (well we'd be closed to OOP :)) > > There's a little drawback: I can not declare a part of a record as > volatile. The seconds variable is meant to be updated inside a interrupt > service routine, and should be declared volatile. > > A variable of a record type can be declared volatile, at least the > compiler does not complain. Just declaring the volatile record variable > does however not use RAM yet, so I doubt that the variable is really > volatile. > > Should I use a non-volatile time variable, and an additional global > seconds variable, which is volatile and updated by some ISR? > > Greets, > Kiste > > * > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jallib" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en. > -- Sébastien Lelong -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
