Dave Tweed wrote:

>> Didn't say that it should substitute it or that you should try to reverse
>> engineer anything from it, did I?
> 
> Sure looked like it to me! You wrote:
> 
>> That's one way. Another way is to ...
> 
> This usually implies that instead of doing the first way (RTFM), you
> do only the second way (look at the compiler output). 

Sorry... it seems I didn't make myself clear enough. 

As I read it, Olin gave two advices: RTFM (which I assumed as being the
obvious thing and not needing any comment) and then how to proceed and
integrate assembler code with C code.

Olin: 
>> It describes how arguments are passed to/from subroutines.  You
>> do whatever it says in assembler.

To me it seemed that Olin was talking about integrating assembler code as
pure assembler files, where the assembler code creates everything that's
necessary to integrate with the C generated code. This includes the calling
conventions (calling assembler routines from C and calling C functions from
assembler), but includes a lot more that needs to be taken care of (most
notably the linker commands). You would have in your project C files and
assembler files with public symbols and link them together. That's what I
called "one way". 

What I called "another way" is that you create C files with rudimentary C
function bodies (that declare the arguments and local variables in C) and
put your assembler code inside the C function body. This has the advantage
that you can use the compiler's help with documenting and checking the
function arguments with all callers, allocation of local variables, call
tree creation, generating the appropriate linker commands and so on.
Depending on what you are doing in the assembler code, this may be easier
than creating everything in assembler. You also can switch between
assembler and C and do whatever is more convenient or efficient in either
part. In the project you only have C files, some of which contain any
amount of assembler in their function bodies. 

The rest (creating example code and analyze it) was not meant to be part of
the "one way ... another way" thing. There is no "other way" to RTFM :)

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist