I think "neat" was intended to be "near"

On 6 July 2010 15:33, Peter <plpeter2006@yahoo.com> wrote:

> William "Chops" Westfield <westfw <at> mac.com> writes:
>
> >     volatile neat unsigned char *addr;
> >
> > Various C's are variously picky about having all those extra
> > bits match up.  You can also cast, but that would be evil.
>
> Some compilers (which?) support an extended notation like:
>
> #define LSFR ...
>
> unsigned int foo @ LSFR;
>
> And later foo can be used as usual.
>
> I can find no references on 'neat', do you have a pointer for documentation
> on
> that please?
>
> Also one tries to use a predefined type or such to avoid too much typing.
> I think that it is also valid to use a #defined or inlined function to
> represent
> the hairy assignment. I.e. something like:
>
> #define fsrub(addr) (*((unsigned char*)addr))
> #define fsruw(addr) (*((unsigned short*)addr))
> ...
>
> Then one could write:
>
> fsrub(LFSR) = my_usqrt(fsrub(LFSR) + bias); ...
>
> Defining the above as functions during debug time can add the possibility
> of
> argument type and range checking, to be followed by recompilation with
> suitable
> #defined flags to use the presumably shorter #defined code.
>
> -- Peter
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist