Jinx wrote:
>> Anyway, to stop this kind of comments, why not
>> simply write them in the order recomened
>> by the datahseet ? :-) :-)
> 
> As I said -
> 
>>> I've tried it both ways

Yes, and your later findings using a 4.0 MHz xtal
also confirms what I wrote about that it *should*
not be an issue in *this* case since TMR0H will
be loaded with the correct value anyway, since it
is never changed.

But note that it is still the value loaded into
the TMRH-buffer from the *last* loop that us used,
so it's a "bug" just waiting to happen, so to speek.

If you for some reason later on decides that you want
different TMR0H values each loop, you'd had a very
nasty bug there... :-)

Jan-Erik.



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