Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> On a side note: Even though I'm really a fan of programming in something
> more comfortable than pure assembly, I think such delay loops are an
> example where resorting to assembly (embedded in C) makes sense. The reason
> is that the exact number of cycles may vary between different versions of a
> compiler, and rather than counting them every time a version changes,
> getting it once right in assembly seems to be a better choice.

I agree - you never know when an additional optimization will mess with 
your carefully-timed loop.

Also, most PIC compilers I've worked with include a delay function in 
the standard library.  BoostC, for instance, includes several delay 
routines of various lengths that are adjusted to match the clock 
frequency, which you specify in a #pragma.
-- 
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