From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-03-28 02:42:30
|
Bugs item #924714, was opened at 2004-03-28 14:42 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=924714&group_id=599 Category: msc51(8051) target Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Ricky White (rickyw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inefficeint use of bit memory Initial Comment: There is no overlaying of bit variables. eg void func1() { bit a; // do somthing with a } void func2() { bit b; // do somthng with b } 'a' will be allocated bit address 0 and 'b' bit address 1. I guess what is needed is some form of overlaying for bit variables since the current situation can be wasteful of bit addressable memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=924714&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-03-29 06:19:40
|
Patches item #924714, was opened at 2004-03-28 04:42 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by bernhardheld You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300599&aid=924714&group_id=599 >Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Ricky White (rickyw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inefficeint use of bit memory Initial Comment: There is no overlaying of bit variables. eg void func1() { bit a; // do somthing with a } void func2() { bit b; // do somthng with b } 'a' will be allocated bit address 0 and 'b' bit address 1. I guess what is needed is some form of overlaying for bit variables since the current situation can be wasteful of bit addressable memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300599&aid=924714&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-03-29 07:04:42
|
Bugs item #924714, was opened at 2004-03-28 04:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bernhardheld You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=924714&group_id=599 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Ricky White (rickyw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inefficeint use of bit memory Initial Comment: There is no overlaying of bit variables. eg void func1() { bit a; // do somthing with a } void func2() { bit b; // do somthng with b } 'a' will be allocated bit address 0 and 'b' bit address 1. I guess what is needed is some form of overlaying for bit variables since the current situation can be wasteful of bit addressable memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2004-03-29 09:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 I restored the data type and category. I'm sorry about the noise, I didn't want to change anything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=924714&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-03-29 07:05:04
|
Bugs item #924714, was opened at 2004-03-28 04:42 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by bernhardheld You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=924714&group_id=599 >Category: msc51(8051) target Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Ricky White (rickyw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inefficeint use of bit memory Initial Comment: There is no overlaying of bit variables. eg void func1() { bit a; // do somthing with a } void func2() { bit b; // do somthng with b } 'a' will be allocated bit address 0 and 'b' bit address 1. I guess what is needed is some form of overlaying for bit variables since the current situation can be wasteful of bit addressable memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2004-03-29 09:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 I restored the data type and category. I'm sorry about the noise, I didn't want to change anything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=924714&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-03-31 08:33:37
|
Bugs item #924714, was opened at 2004-03-28 04:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by maartenbrock You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=924714&group_id=599 Category: msc51(8051) target Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Ricky White (rickyw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inefficeint use of bit memory Initial Comment: There is no overlaying of bit variables. eg void func1() { bit a; // do somthing with a } void func2() { bit b; // do somthng with b } 'a' will be allocated bit address 0 and 'b' bit address 1. I guess what is needed is some form of overlaying for bit variables since the current situation can be wasteful of bit addressable memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2004-03-31 10:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 SDCC isn't that good with bit variables at all. You can't access bits in a byte in bdata easily either. Nor can you return a bit variable. Nor use bit variables in reentrant functions. SDCC is also not very good at overlaying. It can only overlay variables in functions that don't call any other functions. With all that said, this is not a bug. Inefficient but correct is still correct. Greets, Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2004-03-29 09:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 I restored the data type and category. I'm sorry about the noise, I didn't want to change anything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=924714&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-04-11 22:06:09
|
Feature Requests item #924714, was opened at 2004-03-28 04:42 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by bernhardheld You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=924714&group_id=599 >Category: None Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Submitted By: Ricky White (rickyw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inefficeint use of bit memory Initial Comment: There is no overlaying of bit variables. eg void func1() { bit a; // do somthing with a } void func2() { bit b; // do somthng with b } 'a' will be allocated bit address 0 and 'b' bit address 1. I guess what is needed is some form of overlaying for bit variables since the current situation can be wasteful of bit addressable memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2004-03-31 10:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 SDCC isn't that good with bit variables at all. You can't access bits in a byte in bdata easily either. Nor can you return a bit variable. Nor use bit variables in reentrant functions. SDCC is also not very good at overlaying. It can only overlay variables in functions that don't call any other functions. With all that said, this is not a bug. Inefficient but correct is still correct. Greets, Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2004-03-29 09:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 I restored the data type and category. I'm sorry about the noise, I didn't want to change anything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=924714&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-08-25 17:42:02
|
Feature Requests item #924714, was opened at 2004-03-28 04:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by maartenbrock You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=924714&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Submitted By: Ricky White (rickyw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inefficeint use of bit memory Initial Comment: There is no overlaying of bit variables. eg void func1() { bit a; // do somthing with a } void func2() { bit b; // do somthng with b } 'a' will be allocated bit address 0 and 'b' bit address 1. I guess what is needed is some form of overlaying for bit variables since the current situation can be wasteful of bit addressable memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2005-08-25 19:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 MCS51 only: You can now return a bit. And when using -- stack-auto you can also use bit local variables and parameters. Not yet with "reentrant" declared functions though and also no bit returning function pointers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2004-03-31 10:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 SDCC isn't that good with bit variables at all. You can't access bits in a byte in bdata easily either. Nor can you return a bit variable. Nor use bit variables in reentrant functions. SDCC is also not very good at overlaying. It can only overlay variables in functions that don't call any other functions. With all that said, this is not a bug. Inefficient but correct is still correct. Greets, Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2004-03-29 09:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 I restored the data type and category. I'm sorry about the noise, I didn't want to change anything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=924714&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-09-03 10:50:23
|
Feature Requests item #924714, was opened at 2004-03-28 04:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by maartenbrock You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=924714&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Submitted By: Ricky White (rickyw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Inefficeint use of bit memory Initial Comment: There is no overlaying of bit variables. eg void func1() { bit a; // do somthing with a } void func2() { bit b; // do somthng with b } 'a' will be allocated bit address 0 and 'b' bit address 1. I guess what is needed is some form of overlaying for bit variables since the current situation can be wasteful of bit addressable memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2005-09-03 12:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 MCS51 only: All reentrant functions can use local bit variables, bit parameters and return a bit. Also works for function pointers. Of course non-reentrant functions can now also return a bit. Allthough still not overlaying bit memory, bit parameters and locals are allocated in a special byte ("bits") which will get pushed/popped on stack when calling functions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2005-08-25 19:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 MCS51 only: You can now return a bit. And when using -- stack-auto you can also use bit local variables and parameters. Not yet with "reentrant" declared functions though and also no bit returning function pointers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2004-03-31 10:33 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 SDCC isn't that good with bit variables at all. You can't access bits in a byte in bdata easily either. Nor can you return a bit variable. Nor use bit variables in reentrant functions. SDCC is also not very good at overlaying. It can only overlay variables in functions that don't call any other functions. With all that said, this is not a bug. Inefficient but correct is still correct. Greets, Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2004-03-29 09:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 I restored the data type and category. I'm sorry about the noise, I didn't want to change anything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=924714&group_id=599 |