>from the help line
> Probably been asked before, but can we drive MakeItC from a command line? I
didn't see it in the help.
Not sure this makes sense to do, but the opposite might be true. You could use
MakeItC to generate a batch file. In fact, in an unreleased version, I am
logging all the commands that MakeItC generates, it will be a little overkill as
part of that is to run the C pre-porcessor first to find all the sources that
need to be executed. I'll get this out in the next couple days.
> I want to hook it into ProgrammersNotepad2, which will let me add commands. I
use C but PN2 supports basic also.
Might make more sense to hook MakeItC into PN2, like positioning in the file to
the error location. This is doable, by altering the Tcl, which is part of the C
source package.
Other text editors
Re: Other text editors
It could be as simple as just running makeitc via command line.
I don't mind that. Just take your button function, and be able to call that on
the command line.
The output can just be the gcc output directed to the output stream.
I am surprised you didn't start with the cmdline code first, then build the gui
around it. Altho, tcl does make it easy to create apps doesn't it?
Thanks,
Joe
I don't mind that. Just take your button function, and be able to call that on
the command line.
The output can just be the gcc output directed to the output stream.
I am surprised you didn't start with the cmdline code first, then build the gui
around it. Altho, tcl does make it easy to create apps doesn't it?
Thanks,
Joe
Re: Other text editors
>from help line
>... what's driving
> me crazy at the moment is trying to get a short (1-2usec)
> delay to give the open drain clock lines enough rise
> time...
> trying something like this: void dly1() { for (x=0;
> x<100; x++) z++; } where x and z are ints
>
> can you explain why the compiler gives me no delay for
> this? doesn't seem to matter what the loop limit is, it
> only takes 200 nsec!
Most likely this is being optimized out by the compiler, it probably sees that z
is never used. You can verify that by looking at the ASM listing (under the
edit options)
To change that, I'd suggest making it a global variable.
Actually you could also use the TIMER to get a 1-3 uS delay, just wait for 2
ticks.
Most likely other ways to force it (maybe volatile), I'd have to open a C
manual.
While you could turn off optimization, I try not to do that.
>... what's driving
> me crazy at the moment is trying to get a short (1-2usec)
> delay to give the open drain clock lines enough rise
> time...
> trying something like this: void dly1() { for (x=0;
> x<100; x++) z++; } where x and z are ints
>
> can you explain why the compiler gives me no delay for
> this? doesn't seem to matter what the loop limit is, it
> only takes 200 nsec!
Most likely this is being optimized out by the compiler, it probably sees that z
is never used. You can verify that by looking at the ASM listing (under the
edit options)
To change that, I'd suggest making it a global variable.
Actually you could also use the TIMER to get a 1-3 uS delay, just wait for 2
ticks.
Most likely other ways to force it (maybe volatile), I'd have to open a C
manual.
While you could turn off optimization, I try not to do that.