Whats the quickest way to set bits?

[HankMcSpank]

This bargraph generator looks like it could be useful!

I watched the video, but I wasn't able to work outwhat all the user input was for - what I'd like a bargraph generator to do is react to an incoming analog signal.

Ideally with just 5 leds... up until, now, I've been using a dedicated bar graph IC ( - warning turn your PC sound down), but the problem with that IC is that it's a one trick pony...therefore I was thinking of using a PIC to do the bar graph - becuase this would allow corny LED patterns like Knight rider etc!...so I was pondering how to do this just a couple of days ago...this thread is very convenient!

[ScaleRobotics]

I was thinking of using a PIC to do the bar graph - becuase this would allow corny LED patterns like Knight rider etc!...

For Knight Rider bargraph, check out post number three on the MIBAM thread here: http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=10564

[rmteo]

Charles, download the current issue of Embedded Systems Design here. You can also subscribe to the print version which is available for free to professionals.



It will give you a good idea of what is happening in terms of tools (hardware and software) and techniques that are used in current embedded systems design and development.

[Charles Linquis]

I keep threatening to change compilers (to C18, for example) or make a bigger move to ARM chips, but it seems like I never have time to make the switch.

Also, I have so many thousands (truly!) of PICs in military applications that it is really hard to change. In some cases, it took a year to get the hardware qualified but we now have enough of a 'track record' with the hardware and sw that we can get products qualified "by example". If I changed chips, I would have to start over.

I guess I'll have to keep doing it the hard way for a bit longer.

And one more thing - anyone who thinks that PBP is somehow not as good as 'C' can be told that it is running in an awful lot of very, very critical military applications. When written correctly, PBP is bulletproof.

[rmteo]

....And one more thing - anyone who thinks that PBP is somehow not as good as 'C' can be told that it is running in an awful lot of very, very critical military applications. When written correctly, PBP is bulletproof.

Hey, if it works for you and your customers are happy, go for it.

[Charles Linquis]

But I will still have to make the change sooner or later. That is, unless we can get Darrel to add functions, procedures, better string handling and a few other features to the next version of PBP!

[rmteo]

Charles, it is not about you saying that something is bulletproof or whether C (or other language) is better/worse than PBP (or anything else). It is about how easy/difficult it is to ensure (from a maintenance/validation standpoint) that the application/system is correct and how you can validate/test that is so.

From the software perspective, you have discovered that as an application becomes more complex, it gets increasingly difficult to maintain (make changes, additions or corrections). As you have mentioned, languages having structured elements (such as functions, procedures, local and global variables, etc.) go a long way in making it so. Also, features such as pointers, structures, members and unions are very useful when dealing with complex data structures. These features are available in languages such as C.

As for hardware, having the ability to do some form of in-circuit hardware debugging is extremely useful. The ability to single step through the firmware (at the source and/or debug level), set breakpoints, inspect memory and register values, change values on-the-fly, tracing, etc. can give you a view of what your system is actually doing that is difficult to impossible otherwise.