Post Created date
stk500 commandline question.
Thanks cliff I will try it to morrow at work. MMmmmmm next time need to search better the answer was already here. Thx again
Tuesday, 6 February 2007 - 18:19
stk500 commandline question.
Thx for the comment Cliff but it is not correct. Got the next reply: stk500.exe -cUSB:0000A0015326 -datmega64 -f 0xD97F STK500 command line programmer, v 2.2 Atmel Corp (C)...
Tuesday, 6 February 2007 - 10:31
Library compilation.
Heeeeeeeeeeeee awneil made a good comment. My mistake i'm not talking about a real library but about a Quote: source-code "library" So now i understand why my code get so big....
Wednesday, 29 November 2006 - 11:04
Library compilation.
Quote:Because that's what you told it to do? wrung question why it but unused function in hex file. Quote:So why is it in your project? If you're not using it, remove it from the...
Tuesday, 28 November 2006 - 20:16
printf -> stack underflows?
maybe if your stack stats at 0x10D1 and you do a RET statement than maybe they call this a stack underflow
Tuesday, 12 September 2006 - 07:27
Bootloader question
Fix the problem by writing an own make file.
Thursday, 7 September 2006 - 10:47
ARM and Linux
check gumstix.com
Monday, 21 August 2006 - 20:25
Wiznet ehternet stuff
Quote "AVR (max. 8Mbps)" form there site. http://www.wiznet.co.kr/pro_iin_... Of course this wil be a very simple clean program only pumping data. The reason is that they want to...
Monday, 24 July 2006 - 08:43
Atmega128 and C language for memory-mapped i/o
I think this is better. Use volatile. Even where the gcc guys define PORTA the use volatile if i'm correct. { volatile unsigned char * p = (unsigned shar *) 0xDD03; *p = 0x80...
Thursday, 15 June 2006 - 09:36
odd problem: code is too slow I think
Look at lynxmotion.com these guys make very complicated hexapod robots. The even have a servo driver to drive these hexpod made with a atmel. Andif you search hard enough on there...
Sunday, 4 June 2006 - 17:08
seconds
MAIN_Delay100MS(10*n); Do not forget 10*n cannot be bigger than a byte (0xFF)
Saturday, 22 April 2006 - 10:59
Why compiler did this
I agree that writing DDRF = 0xFF is the same but just want to check out what the compiler does Thanks for the input guys.
Thursday, 16 March 2006 - 09:00

Pages