This comes up now and then and although I agree that the development of PBP is kind of slow I fail to see how a PBP command to handle something like PPS would even work. I mean setting the output of the MSSP module to RB0 would then require a line of PBP code - exactly the amount of PBP code it takes without a specific command for it. (Not counting the lock/unlock sequence). I personally don't see the benefit of having a dedidated PBP command when all that command would do is set a single register to a specific value.

As far as the NCO goes, that might have some merit but like HPWM a PBP command to run it would likely impose limits/restrictions. That doesn't mean it wouldn't/couldn't be useful though.

It may sound as if I don't want PBP to evelove, I most certainly do, but I'd rather see the apparently limited development resources available spent on keeping up with the current devices instead of adding commands that a couple of lines of PBP code (ie setting a register or two) already does.

What I'd like to see is something like DT-Ints built into PBP but an even clever version that analyses the code in the ISR and determines what system variables it NEEDS to save based on what library routines the compiler acutally used to generate the code in the ISR.

New 8-bit devices are coming out with vectored interrups and DMA, I'd like to see support for th.

With that said, I'm not holding my breath...

/Henrik.