> > Err, yes, but you do need to appreciate the underlying architecture of =
the chip,
>=20
> Why would you *need* to appreciate it? I don't think many PC users
> appreciate the finer details (or any details at all) of the x86 or x386
> architecture (much less the horribly complex yet very successful
> siblings that we use today).
>=20
> I am now doing some work on a Cortex chip in C++. I am very familiar
> with the ARM architecture and instruction set, but I don't feel any need
> to dig into the Cortex instruction set. The authors of the GCC back-end
> have done that, so I can go on with my work very effectively without
> such knowledge. And later on I might switch to a PIC32, again without
> first digging into the instruction set architecture.
>=20
> I don't say that some knowledge of the asm level can't be beneficial,
> but say that you *need* it is ridiculous.

Um, not really, does the compiler automatically set the TRIS, LAT or PORT r=
egisters for you? All the PIC C code I have seen manipulates these in some =
way that is set by the writer of the end application.=20

Similar things happen with some of the config registers, and how they affec=
t things like watchdog operation on some chip families.

Some of these things get ingrained in the mind better by using ASM level co=
de rather than going to the higher level where it gets abstracted somewhat.=
=20
--=20
Scanned by iCritical.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.