William Killian wrote:

> PICs with their very small RAM space are not really suitable for standard
> C approach.  Thus the unusual call and return approach.  

It's not the missing RAM, actually, it's the lack of hardware support for a
traditional (RAM based) stack.

> But nothing in the C definition requires the actual call and return
> assembly instructions be used.  As long as it works enough like call and
> return it is okay.

Well, the thing is that a static call tree does work "enough like call and
return" only if you don't use a few standard features, like recursion (not
really a favorite of mine in embedded systems) and function pointers (which
I'm sometimes missing).

So I guess this is actually non-standard. But reasonably so, in this case.

Gerhard

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