On 9/14/05, Jinx <joecolquitt@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>=20
> Looking a lot more organised Sean - that's good progress for
> a day



Thank you!=20

Just a couple of things. As you get to know the registers better
> you could cut down on the BANKSELs. For example PortA,
> PortC and TMR0 are all in bank0 so
>=20
> BANKSEL PORTA
> CLRF PORTA
> CLRF PORTC
> CLRF TMR0
>=20
> is sufficient instead of
>=20
> BANKSEL PORTA
> CLRF PORTA
>=20
> BANKSEL PORTC
> CLRF PORTC
>=20
> BANKSEL TMR0
> CLRF TMR0
>=20

Doesn't the latter cater for complete portability? It probably caters for=
=20
twice as much overhead; or does the assembler take care of that all upon=20
code assembly?
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist