On 2010-09-22 14:42, Rolf wrote:
> On 10-09-22 08:16 AM, David Duffy (AVD) wrote:
>> Rolf wrote:
>>
>>> Good point. All writes to PORTx are written to the latch anyway, so clr=
f
>>> PORTx is identical to clrf LATx
>>>
>>> The port pin diagrams indicate that fact as well.
>>>
>>> Further, all analog pins read as '0', all digital pins read the state o=
f
>>> the signal (which for outputs may be a mis-match to the LATx value if
>>> you have slow-changing signal lines...).
>>>
>>> But, in all cases, clrf PORTx =3D=3D clrf LATx
>>>
>>> On the other hand, it's not an error to do it twice... and further,
>>> operations other than 'clrf' on PORTx will/may produce a different
>>> result than the same operation on LATx... so perhaps it is good practic=
e
>>> to treat them 'both' explicitly in the initialization routine...
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry, you're confusing me now!  How would MOVWF PORTx and MOVWF LATx
>> ever end in a different result?
>> David...
>>
> Well, movwf is not a great example,...

It's a *perfect* example of "operations other than 'clrf'" !
*Any* other operation is an operation "other than 'clrf'"...

> When I said 'operations other than clrf' I did not mean...

How the heck should we know what you *ment* ??
We can (of course) only know what you actualy *wrote*.
And what you wrote was simply wrong.

Why not simply say "OK, I was unclear, sorry" instead
of trying to defend what you wrote ? Than there hadn't
been any reason for this and other posts...


Jan-Erik.



> *every* other
> operation other than clrf... just 'at least some'.
>
> Rolf
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.