IOWR and IORD with PIOs

--- Quote Start ---

Then change the code this way:

alt_u8 small_1= {1,2,3,4};
alt_u8 small_2= {5,6,7,8};
 
alt_u32 custom_int_res = 0;
custom_int_res = ALT_CI_MYMACRO( *((alt_u32 *)small_1), *((alt_u32 *)small_2) );

--- Quote End ---

Thank you so much again Cris and with the very good explanation too. I tried your method and this operation happened with less ticks than when using the '<<'.

Now I have another problem :) Those small_1 and small_2 arrays have changing values, coming from a bigger array. The 8 values are being collected from as a 'sliding window' as shown in code below.

 # define ROW 3# define COL 5
 
// 2-D array containing unsigned 8-bit integers
alt_u8 array_image = { /* fill in values */};
 
alt_u8 small_1;
alt_u8 small_2;
 
for(y=0; y<(ROW -2); y++)  {
               for(x=0; x<(COL-2); x++)  {
 small_1 = array_image; small_1 = array_image;
 small_1 = array_image; small_1 = array_image;
 
 small_2 = array_image; small_2 = array_image;
 small_2 = array_image; small_2 = array_image;
 
 store_result = ALT_CI_MYMACRO( *((alt_u32 *)small_1), *((alt_u32 *)small_2) );
 
               }
 }
 

But the fact that I am populating the small arrays within the loops requires nios cpu time. Is there instead a smart way again using the pointers to do this? For example, suppose my 3x5 data is as such:

10 20 30 40 50

11 21 31 41 51

12 22 32 42 52

I want the following values in each small array at each loop iteration.

at x = 0, small_1 = {10,20,30,11} and small_2 = {31,12,22,32}

at x = 1, small_1 = {20,30,40,21} and small_2 = {41,22,32,42}

at x = 2, small_1 = {30,40,50,31} and small_2 = {51,32,42,52}