....
    struct tm t;
    t.tm_sec = 00;    // 0-59
    t.tm_min = 58;    // 0-59
    t.tm_hour = 8;   // 0-23
    t.tm_mday = 1;   // 1-31
    t.tm_mon = 4;     // 0-11
    t.tm_year = 2011 - 1900;  // year since 1900

    // convert to timestamp
    time_t seconds = mktime(&t);

    set_time(seconds);  // Set RTC time
   
    time_t cursecs = time(NULL);
    strftime(buffer, 32, "%d/%m/%Y\n", localtime(&cursecs));
    printf("%s", buffer);

= Possible bug with Time display = = Does mbed sense April Fools' Day? = === Bug and suggestions forum is currently unreachable === <<code>> .... struct tm t; t.tm_sec = 00; // 0-59 t.tm_min = 58; // 0-59 t.tm_hour = 8; // 0-23 t.tm_mday = 1; // 1-31 t.tm_mon = 4; // 0-11 t.tm_year = 2011 - 1900; // year since 1900 // convert to timestamp time_t seconds = mktime(&t); set_time(seconds); // Set RTC time time_t cursecs = time(NULL); strftime(buffer, 32, "%d/%m/%Y\n", localtime(&cursecs)); printf("%s", buffer); <</code>> shows as "01/05/2011"

Months are counted from 0, just like the comment says, so 4 is May.

Thanks for pointing that out, that's really really dumb. (Not mbeds's fault but the standard is the standard.) It also means that the secs range comment is also wrong because it ranges from (0-60 with 60 = leap second). I hope everyone had great April Fools' day!

I got this error message everytime i try to open any one of the programs drop down menu from the compiler tab. {{/media/uploads/stunner08/mbedissue.jpg}} Appreciate the help.

hi, Did you try to disable ie plugins? In theast i had similar problems with a divx plugin that inserted code into every page i opened. Disabling this plugin fixed it. wvd_vegt

Hi, There's many Plugins and I'm not sure which one to disable. Regards

Hi Start with the DivX ones if You have those. wvd_vegt

#include "mbed.h"

Serial pc(USBTX, USBRX);

// A class which contains a timeout
class SomeClassWithTimeOut {
public:
    // Constructor sets the timeout period
    SomeClassWithTimeOut(int tPeriod) : _tPeriod(tPeriod) {
    };
    // Start the timer and wait for the interupt
    void StartTimer(void) {
        int i = 0;
        tFinished = false;
        t.attach(this, &SomeClassWithTimeOut::tTimedOut, _tPeriod);
// ****THE COMPILER APPEARS TO CHANGE THE NEXT LINE TO while(1)****
// ****AS THE LOOP IS NEVER BROKEN......***************************
        while (!tFinished) {
            // Wait for timeout
// ****....UNLESS THE FOLLOWING pc.printf(""); LINE IS INSERTED****
//            pc.printf("");
// ****BIZARRE!****************************************************
            i++;
        }
        pc.printf("%i\n", i);
    };
    // The timeout has finished so set tFinished
    void tTimedOut(void) {
        tFinished = true;
        pc.printf("Timed Out!\n");
    };
    // Boolean to indicate whether a timeout has finished
    bool tFinished;
protected:
    // Timeout period
    int _tPeriod;
    // Timeout
    Timeout t;
};

int main() {
    // New instance of class with timeout period of 1 second
    SomeClassWithTimeOut t1(1);
    // Counter used to count timeouts
    int t1Counter = 0;
    while (1) {
        // Reset flag and start timeout
        t1.StartTimer();
        // Increment timeout counter
        t1Counter++;
        pc.printf("The timer has timed out %i times\n", t1Counter);
    }
}

Hello, I'm pretty sure I've found a bug with the compiler that is changing a valid "while" loop to a "while(1)" and thus freezing a program. <<code>> #include "mbed.h" Serial pc(USBTX, USBRX); // A class which contains a timeout class SomeClassWithTimeOut { public: // Constructor sets the timeout period SomeClassWithTimeOut(int tPeriod) : _tPeriod(tPeriod) { }; // Start the timer and wait for the interupt void StartTimer(void) { int i = 0; tFinished = false; t.attach(this, &SomeClassWithTimeOut::tTimedOut, _tPeriod); // ****THE COMPILER APPEARS TO CHANGE THE NEXT LINE TO while(1)**** // ****AS THE LOOP IS NEVER BROKEN......*************************** while (!tFinished) { // Wait for timeout // ****....UNLESS THE FOLLOWING pc.printf(""); LINE IS INSERTED**** // pc.printf(""); // ****BIZARRE!**************************************************** i++; } pc.printf("%i\n", i); }; // The timeout has finished so set tFinished void tTimedOut(void) { tFinished = true; pc.printf("Timed Out!\n"); }; // Boolean to indicate whether a timeout has finished bool tFinished; protected: // Timeout period int _tPeriod; // Timeout Timeout t; }; int main() { // New instance of class with timeout period of 1 second SomeClassWithTimeOut t1(1); // Counter used to count timeouts int t1Counter = 0; while (1) { // Reset flag and start timeout t1.StartTimer(); // Increment timeout counter t1Counter++; pc.printf("The timer has timed out %i times\n", t1Counter); } } <</code>> The program gets stuck in the while loop on line 18. I know that the variable tFinished is set to 1 as the pc.printf("Timed Out\n") message appears on the terminal. The really strange thing is that if I un-comment the printf command on line 21, the program runs perfectly. It seems like the compiler messes with the while loop unless the printf command is in there. Any suggestions?

Did you declare tFinished as volatile?

volatile bool tFinished;

<<quote timbobazza>> I know that the variable tFinished is set to 1 as the pc.printf("Timed Out\n") message appears on the terminal. The really strange thing is that if I un-comment the printf command on line 21, the program runs perfectly. It seems like the compiler messes with the while loop unless the printf command is in there. Any suggestions? <</quote>> All the C compilers would optimize this source code in the same way. When a variable can be modified by an external Thread/ISR you should specifically tell the compiler to not optimize it through the ##volatile## keyword: <<code>> volatile bool tFinished; <</code>> For more information you can read the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_variable|wikipedia volatile entry]]. HTH, Emilio Edit: Thank you Andy, I was slow editing my answer... ;-)

Andy and Emilio, Thanks for your help. It is now working perfectly! I definitely need to brush up on my c++ ;-D Tim

Emilio, hey, cool man. I just took the "fast solution" with a one liner. I only beat you because you spent more time giving a thorough and usable answer :)