westfw:
I suggest modifying a volatile variable inside the loop.volatile byte dosomething;
:
for (lc=le; lc<(le+30000); lc++) //this syntax avoid compiler semplifications
{
dosomething = 0;
}
Because null loops are pretty boring. Then you won't need to be so tricky with your loops, either... Various "long" variables used to hold timestamps should be "unsigned long"
Thanks westfw, our initial version of the code included some operations in the INT loop, however we reason that in the FOR statement there was already an increment operation. The code use the INT loop to calibrate the speed of the FLOAT loop, and it is probably ok to have a rough comparison between the platforms we got.
Probably I could code a WHILE statement where comparison and increment can appear as different recognizable operation, but I got the feeling that It would not be that different for the compiler.
Thanks a lot for the input.