I submitted this pearl of a snippet to the daily WTF this morning :

<constant name="twoStroke">&quot;Four-stroke&quot;</constant>

NOT Otto OR YES?

how about :

<constant name="Strokes">Four</constant>

What do you think?

I think that if they are going to do it that way, they should do it like this :

<constant name="twoStroke?">Four-stroke!</constant>

Got any gems like that?

Fred.

haha this is awesome!

i bet they've also implemented the wiwntoi() function

/* this function converts a number from the written-in-words number form to the integer representation*/
int wiwntoi(char* wn){

...

}

OMFG WTF??

http://www.msefi.com/viewtopic.php?p=191125#191125

Another "clever hack" that is highly likely to cause headaches in the future...

I'd be curious to hear what the Freescale people would think about that one: driving a 3.3V device from a 5V one by using the pin as an input.

That's a clever hack for bench testing but an automotive environment is not a friendly one for hacks. But it's going to be interesting to see what happens with that one.

Jean

I bet you more than a few people cook the cpld by coding it as an output by accident as force of habit during dev. It's a clever cool idea, and I like such tricks, but they aren't a full blooded solution. Also, using C32 devices on it... hmmmm.

Isn't it how you do design? See what the requirements are and then use what you have (instead of what should be used).

hmmmm indeed.

Thats also why i don't want to try to do too much with our chip. But I'll discuss that where it belongs in that other thread when I find time to do it.

http://www.msefi.com/viewtopic.php?p=191248#191248

Poor Ken :-(

this would be a great time for them to change camps

But but but, they'll try to optimise our code with GASP assembly GASP :-|

I'm sure some of them will come sooner or later, I'm not sure that now is the right time, I've already fallen victim to thinking inside the box a bit too much. I'm making a concerted effort to avoid that. They might be a bit too close to "how it's done" rather than "how it could be done".

When I was looking at memory structure trying to figure our how to setup memory.x at all, I was appalled to find stuff in there that fully isn't required and is misleading and just unused etc. I was expecting a nice modular clean set of files, instead I found Al's code modified and spread out :-| not bad, but not good either. They should have started from blank. Or at least gutted it totally first. and put stuff back in selectively. IMO anyway.

I want them over here (though I doubt Ken will come) but not yet.

Fred.