Jump to content

JorgeF

EstablishedMember
  • Content count

    287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About JorgeF

  • Rank
    Super Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    ES @ Europe, third rock from the Sun
  1. Hi There is one thing in your logic that you might want to re-evaluate. I wouldn't trust a compiler to organize the code space in a continuos block, most of the ones I know do spread chuncks of code all over the place just to optimize for the addressing scheme of the PIC (mnimize pagging). The same spreading, for the same reasons, might be found with RAM usage. If you intend to use some part of your flash memory for data you would better reserve it. Use the "-rt" command line switch to limit the maximum address available for the program and use the flash above that address for runtime data (NVM). A work around for your initial question can be to adjust the top of rom (-rt) close the the actual size of your release code and calculate the CRC from "0x0000" up to your "-rt" value. You can calculate the CRC verification from the data on the HEX file as it is a byte image of what will be recorded in the program flash. BTW: Make sure you do program your release code on blank chips so you can use the erased value of the flash in your CRC calculation. Just my 2 cents of it.... Best regards Jorge
  2. Hi I usually find that kind of information on the HEX file used to program the PIC. If you tell us what is your goal, maybe there are other ways, besides finding the last used flash address, to achieve it. Best regards Jorge
  3. License Registration not working

    Hi Assuming those object files are part of your code, the linker might be trying to reuse them without a new compilation. Just force a full recompilation of all the source code. Best regards Jorge
  4. Hi Yes I wrote that, but I also worte... And this comes from my assembly programming experience. When it comes to 8 bit PICs, I have a lot more finished products written in ASM than in 'C'. Bit scanning needs often surface whenever you have an array of sensors, a keyboard or even LED arrays like in 7 segment displays. On all those situations, no matter how many tricks i come up with, the individual bit access ends up being more costly (instruction cycles and program memory) than bit mask based operations. So my experience showed me that it can be done but its not worth the effort. I don't se this as an universal truth, simply an 8 bit PIC specific (hardware architecture and instruction set) conclusion. Give me a different microcontroller and I would, probably, end up with a different conclusion. I also have a large experience in high level programming on desktop systems (C, C++, VB, Java, ...) and I happily port algorithms and code design accross different hardware platforms and operating systems. But programming an 8 bit PIC is a totally different ball game, there is no hardware abstraction at all. The ball game also changes deeply when moving from 8bit PICs to 16bit PICs or to 32bit PICs. The platforms are so different that even using "C" or "C++" one needs to adjust the algorithms, data structures and even the whole conceptual approach to program design. Just my 2 cents.... Best regards Jorge
  5. Hi Your codding seems a bit odd, to say the least. Assigning independent addresses to the fields of a struct is against the basic semanthics of a struct. I suspect the compiler is simply ignoring it and a warning is missing, maybe some inactive (disabled) warning. In terms of assigning fixed addresses to variables, what you can do is to assign an address to a variable of type struct (MyPortStruct) but the internal organization of the struct is out of control. If the 2 port addresses are consecutive, you can place a 2 byte variable (int) on top of them and access the individual bits of that variable, anyhow, the BoostC compiler will not accept a variable bit index like in your for loop (another thread). My solution to access computed individual bit ports is to use the loop counter to generate a bitmask and use a bitwase operation. Best regards Jorge
  6. Hii jartim Why are you commenting a post from 2010. That guy "naim" has probably gone for long, the post above is his first and only since 2010. Best regards Jorge
  7. Hi I think you are guessing right! And in doing so the compiler saves one instruction, as you can see in your openning post the second form (not preserved) is one instruction shorter than the first (preserved). Best regards Jorge
  8. Hi Are you sure that in the context of the whole program, the value of "trembler @ 0x47" still needs to be preserved for the remaining code after 0x020B ? Best regards Jorge
  9. Hi If code can be generated to compute indexing of arrays, struct fields, ponters and so on, for sure it can also generate code to access a given bit in a byte or word from a variable. My guess is that a piece of generic code to do that would be heavy and ineficient, so they choose to leave it to the programmer, to write optimized code for each use case. Just my 2 cents.... Best regards Jorge
  10. Preprocessor Macros Do Not Work In Mplab-X V4

    Hi If my memory is not tricking me, that "item 2" refered a problem with the Sourceboost IDE and has nothing to do with MPLAB integration. Just my 2 cents... Best regards Jorge
  11. Update To Test_Bit

    Hi Any special reason to not use the bitwise not operator (~) or does it generate the same code^? Using a logical operator induces the compiler to do a type cast on the result of "test_bit" to a logical type (char or int) before checking its value. In strict 'C' the "!test_bit(...)" expression translates to something like "!(char)test_bit()" or "!(int)test_bit(...)" How about droping the old "test-bit()" and similar macros and using direct bit indexing, If I'm not worng its available since the first release of BoostC 7.xx AFAIK the "test_bit", "set_bit" and "clear_bit" macros have been deprecated several years ago. EDIT ADD: "semantics do matter!" Best reards Jorge
  12. Hi Thank you Pavel. So, if I understood it correctly all the important things are acounted for, its only missing optionals. All the registers relating to oscillator configurations, interrupts, memory paging/banking and other core features are defined. The compiler and linker do handle interrupts (context), the memory maps (ROM pages / RAM banks) and config words correctly, including the tricky dispatching code used by Novo. All I have to take care by myself are the peripherals. Good enought for me! EDIT ADD: BTW, I mostly use MPLAB 8/X Best regards Jorge
  13. Hi Pavel What exactly means "limited support" in the version log? Its something to do with the core processor or its only a libraries thing? Best regards Jorge
  14. Hi There is a awful lot of temporary variables. You are probably nesting several functions with many parameters. Can you show your code, we may be able to suggest some improvements. Best regards Jorge
  15. Pic16 Boostc Far Array Indexing Error

    Hi The problem must be related to the index size (-idx) of the compiler and linker command lines. But the option for an index size of 2 bytes is only available on the PIC18 compiler (large memory model). Looks like this RAM access improvement on the PIC16F1xxx family as created a problem for the PIC16 compilers. The pointer workaround works because the maths are done on the pointer variable and not on the indexing SFRs. Just my 2 cents on guessing... Best regards Jorge
×