Wayne, At 04:39 16-3-2012, Wayne Uroda wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_FC420BFC27132046879F921D33E6D87F0A693709A9BRUNOgrabbalo_" > >I notice that iostructures.h hasn't been a part of the MSPGCC >project for a while now... > >I am wondering if there is a reason for this? I always found these >structures were a very convenient way to access individual pins, and >I can't recall ever suffering any strange problems from using the >structures to read or write the in,out,dir,sel,ies,ie and ifg bits. > >If there is a compelling technical reason to not access pins through >structures such as these, does anybody have suggestions as to how >they do it, and why?
I've always found those structures prone to errors because the author must carefully count the number of elements. Especially when there are gaps in the map it is easy to make a mistake. Another potential problem is alignment. A compiler may align byte elements of a structure on 2 or 4 byte boundaries depending on pragmas or options. I'm quite sure structures or constant pointers are not slower or faster. Since the address is constant in both cases the compiler can optimize both equally well. Nico Coesel o---------------------------------------------------------------o | N C T Developments | |Innovative embedded solutions | o---------------------------------------------------------------o ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
