CompuServe Messages

Bob, I'm still not 100% convinced that in all cases you simply get rid of the chip keyword and viola!, everythings ducky with Manx. What if you're concerned about the amount of chip memory usage. If you need to load only data items that must be in chip memory into chip memory, you'd have to do some juggling after eliminating the chip keyword to get Manx to fit the bill. Not much juggling, but some. In this light, use of the chip keyword, ahough not disasterous, may require a progammer to do some extra work, should the code be ported to Manx. As with any portability decision, the question is how likely is it that I'd have to port to another compiler, and how much effort will I have making that port? With the chip keyword, the answers probably are "I probably won't ever need to port this to Manx.", and "If I have to port to Manx, it won't be too much extra work." With these answers in mind, you use the chip keyword. My only point in all this, is that, "Hey! This chip keyword is a keen idea.", as opposed to "Stupid Lattice. Making a feature that Manx doesn't support. <grrrr>." 🙂 The same arguments apply to use of inline assembly code. Neat feature, but be sure to ask yourself the magic portability questions before taking advantage of this feature. Dave @OTG