Search does not return documentation on IN instruction

Go To Last Post
16 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

http://www.atmel.com/webdoc/avra...

 

At the link above, the search will not return documentation on the IN instruction. The documentation is there. It follows the IJMP instruction. Search for that and go to NEXT-> and you see it.

 

PS: I tried to post this comment at another (more logical) part of the Forum and it wouldn't

let me enter into this BODY section. Anyone know why? I don't know where I was when trying. I was able to enter into the TITLE section but when I tabbed to the BODY section, there was no cursor and all the tools were disabled (shaded out ... except A text color, A background color, and <> )

 

I'm entering this at:

http://www.avrfreaks.net/node/ad...

 

Yes, I am climbing the learning curve on ATMEL. I'm experienced but evidently not experienced enough to avoid frustration at inconsistencies across ATMEL and across documentation in general. This is just one of many that wastes my time. Such is life in computerland.

Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

The link works on my computer (iPhone)
There is a pdf you can download with the list of instructions.

Last Edited: Tue. Nov 14, 2017 - 06:52 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Does this help?

 

Attachment(s): 

John Samperi

Ampertronics Pty. Ltd.

www.ampertronics.com.au

* Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I think the OP's point is that the search function is faulty - not that the information is unavailable:

 

 

It says there are, "no results" - when clearly the topic does exist!

 

I guess this is probably because it - like many searches - disallows "in" as a trivial search term.

But, if that is the case, it should say so - not lie about there being no hits.

 

angry

 

But, as others have said, the PDF would be the best place to get the actual information...

(and the search there will work).

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Is it me? If you go to that "search" then you see this:

 

Alongside is [Contents]. If you select that instead you see:

That is a list in ALPHABETIC order of the opcodes. Further down you come to:

 

Doesn't it simply make sense (just as with the PDF which is effectively the same info) to simply find the opcode you need by its position in the alphabet?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Yup, the search is faulty. Interestingly, if returns hits.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I don't believe it's faulty. Most searches will discount very common words. Can you, for example, find the AND opcode? If the AVR had an instruction called THE imagine what fun it would be trying to find THAT! (and there's another one)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Yes, but as I said, I searched for IF and it was found, and the hits are relevant. IF is also a common word. So in my opinion it's faulty.

 

edit: maybe "faulty" is to strong a word, but at least it could be improved, for example, not excluding common words from the titles search.

Last Edited: Tue. Nov 14, 2017 - 02:27 PM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

How many times do you think a word like "AND" appears in the search text? How useful would it be if it hit that word?

 

I just went to Google and searched "Harry Potter and the philosopher's stone" to get 428,000 hits. Then I searched "Harry Potter philosopher's stone" (without "and the") and actually got 451,000 hits. So dropping common words looks like a very good strategy to me.

 

Clearly those Atmel documentation pages are just using a standard index/search tool and I doubt it is "microcomputer/microcontroller savvy" so it won't know that IN, AND, etc have a special significance when you are talking micros.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

El Tangas wrote:
at least it could be improved

I agree.

 

If it's not going to bother to do the search on certain words - which, as noted, is not unreasonable - then it should clearly say that.

 

To just saying "nothing found" is a lie - it didn't even bother to look!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

The link works on my computer too. But did you use it to search for the "IN" instruction? Every instruction I've had it search for it has found and displayed ... every one except the "IN" instruction that is.

 

Is that different than the behaviour you see?

 

I have a list of instructions. My purpose here was to report what looks like a bug in a Web Page implementation.

Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

"Doesn't it simply make sense (just as with the PDF which is effectively the same info) to simply find the opcode you need by its position in the alphabet?"

 

If that was the sense you wanted it to make, I guess it does. I was studying code and being new to the part I was using it as a quick reference when trying to decipher what the code I was studying was trying to do. At the time, that's what made sense to me ... and it was doing fine ... until I tried to learn the details about the "IN" instruction. Tilt!

Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

"Does this help?"

 

It does if that's what my problem was. I was trying to report what looked like a bug.

 

I could have implemented that search in the web page by using a list of instructions names and then links to the documentation. If that's what it was doing, then it looked like "IN" had been left out of the list. If I were I scientist, I suppose I would have immediately tried to find the instruction "THE" and see if it was left out too. Then I would deduce the algorithm from the behaviour. But as another commenter noted, it did return a result for "IF". You shouldn't have do guess algorithms when trying to use an application in a natural way.

 

It seems like programmers never make mistakes any more. They just have different definitions for their features. I've been programming these things for over 50 years and it's really kind of disgusting these days.

 

Read some documentation some time. See if it doesn't reek of COIK. (oh, and if you don't know, that means it's "Clear Only If Known" ... documentation should say that at first reference ... as I just did here). And they're creating new words faster than the English language has ever experienced so expecting some help is not out of the question. Just saying...

Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

"Clearly those Atmel documentation pages are just using a standard index/search tool and I doubt it is "microcomputer/microcontroller savvy" so it won't know that IN, AND, etc have a special significance when you are talking micros."

 

"Clearly" might not be the appropriate word when you first experience the behaviour ... as in this case. If its purpose is to give definitions for microcomputer/microcontroller instructions, I would "clearly" expect it to be "savvy" in that regard ... wouldn't you?

 

But then of course, this isn't a bug I've reported ... it's a feature I've tripped over.

Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX

Last Edited: Wed. Nov 15, 2017 - 12:52 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

"Is it me? If you go to that "search" then you see this:"

 

In my opinion, yes, I think it is you.

 

"Doesn't it simply make sense (just as with the PDF which is effectively the same info) to simply find the opcode you need by its position in the alphabet?"

 

"just as with the PDF ..." ?

 

If it was just the PDF I would be using ctrl-F ... or for words like "IN" I would be looking to the end for an index with links back to the point of interest. I viewed this as a useful tool to do the same thing a little more quickly. How was I to know how it was implemented?

 

I always find a solution to issues I encounter. And if they look like bugs, I try to report them. It's just pretty ugly when the issue could be easily avoided with a little less programmer arrogance and bravado and defensiveness.

Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

No use reporting website bugs here - we’re not Atmel. We’re just joe averages like yourself.
As for the general quality of web code - most of it is generated in coding sweat-shops. I’m told it’s cheap, but let's not mention quality.