[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?
From: |
jan |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ? |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:11:14 +0100 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 01:04:44 +1100
Erik Christiansen <address@hidden> wrote:
> IANA "volatile" expert, but understand that "[hardware|other thread]
> may change the value while this code is executing" is a legitimate
> view of the compiler's perspective. In that case, the whole value
> must be read and rewritten, to avoid composite values, partly
> software created, and partly hardware-(or alternate thread)-written.
> reading and writing only some bytes is not a reliable option with a
> predictable outcome.
OK, neither am I a. But if the whole value must be read and rewritten
the compiler better insert interrupt disable/enable for volatiles
larger than 8 bits.
/Janne
- [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, bob, 2011/03/01
- Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, Graham Davies, 2011/03/01
- Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, Alex Eremeenkov, 2011/03/01
- Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, Graham Davies, 2011/03/01
- Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, Erik Christiansen, 2011/03/01
- Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, bob, 2011/03/01
- RE: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, Colin O'Flynn, 2011/03/01
- Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, Graham Davies, 2011/03/01
- Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, Erik Christiansen, 2011/03/01
- Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, bob, 2011/03/01
- Message not available
- [avr-chat] Re: Fasching, bob, 2011/03/02
- Re: [avr-chat] Re: Fasching, Erik Christiansen, 2011/03/02
- Re: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, Graham Davies, 2011/03/01
- RE: [avr-chat] Missed Optimisation ?, Colin O'Flynn, 2011/03/01