Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> I think that is the Baranov/Kanda compiler? Yes I know about it - at one
> time Pavel and I worked just 100m apart!

That's a lot of PIC experience per square meter!

> But maybe you can check this bit data type: can you take the address of
> a bit and do arithmetic with that address and pass it around, just like
> other addresses? And can you pass a bit as parameter to a function? If
> all this is true (and the generated code does not hold any unpleasant
> surprises) it is a good implementation of a bit data type.

No, it's not that robust.  I don't have the docs in front of me, but 
it's basically just a convenient way to store flags and have the 
compiler manage combining them into bytes for storage.

> But that does not negate the argument that C (in the sense of ANSI C or
> k&R C) does not have a bit data type.

True.  I would agree that ANSI C is not, by itself, very suitable for 
PICs - without essential, non-portable extensions.
-- 
Timothy J. Weber
http://timothyweber.org
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist