Jump to content

LasseT

EstablishedMember
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About LasseT

  • Rank
    Newbrie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden
  1. I added a new testprogram to the original posting. Maybe it will help some. Regards, Lasse T
  2. I have been using the SB V7.0 for a few days and it looks very promising ! I found some small problems when I used the large array feature. The first time I observed this was when I used a 'struct' spanning 300 'something' bytes in total. I created some small test programs with int and long variables and found some problems when using the option -idx 2. This was the easy way to describe the observation. If the test programs where compiled with the default -idx 1 everything works ok but if I use the option -idx 2 I will have a linker error and it looks like the compilation runs ok
  3. Bug description: I'm reusing a C-program that is compiled with a GNU C compiler and the program works ok in that environment. No problems what so ever. When I try to compile the same program in BoostC IDE design environment it seems to work alright because I will not receive any warnings or errors. The program does not work ok when it runs on a PIC circuit. After some debugging sessions I have identified som addressing problems of "structs in structs" (or what I shall call it? pointers to structs in structs maybe). I use this quite often in my program: (&pointer_to_mainstructure-&g
  4. I'm not sure if this is a bug but I have a hard time to figure out how to debug the 18F67J60. It might be a complete missunderstanding from my side of the 18F67J60 way of working :-), anyway I need some help, please. I'm back to a very simple setup program for port B that works ok for a target chip like 18F452. When I recompile the program for the 67J60 chip it behaves different. I connect a "plugin led" on port B pin 1 just to have a visual indication. IDE 6.87 and BoostC on a WinXP PC. Feedback needed :-)! /LasseT ********************************************
  5. Some more information ================= I have been running with SourceBoost 6.31 until my HD gave up :-( a few days ago. (Yes I have a backup) But I got some problem upgrading to revision 6.33 and 6.32. Program compilation is reporting "success" but linker is reporting "fail". See below my very stripped down software for testpurpose. I think the union/struct design give the later two revisions a hard time, BUT I´m not sure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everything is ok with revision 6.31. I have a lot of union/struct designs like this below in my "large protocol software" and it
  6. I have some problems with the "linker" when I upgraded from 6.31 to 6.33. This is most likely some misstake that I have done. I have no problem with the programs when I used revision 6.31 but the same code will not link with the release 6.33. Is it possible to download 6.31 again? I can not find it at the "downloading" web page. BR Lasse T
  7. Hi! I have done some more testing and you can find my testprogram attached. I think this problem also can be found for 16F chip. I tested this program compiled for 16F877A and found the same problem there ( == and !=). I have tested the program for 16F877A (16F in table below) and 18F458 (18F in table below). Hera are my comments on the tests and you can find the testnumbers in the program. ( queston mark indicates that it looks ok but the test is not done in a correct way. It fooled at least me when I first tested this :-) ) EQ1 Correct for 16F and 18F. EQ2 Correct
  8. The same kind of problem can be found when using != instead of ==. I guess that it is more or less the same code part in the compiler so it will be corrected at the same time. Regards, Lasse By the way! The SourceBoostC is a very nice "tool" to work with :-)! I have a lot of fun designing with this environment.
  9. Problem description: ============== Compare problems for 32 bit words. (Possible bug) Please notice that my test works fine when running the compiler for a target like 16F877A and 16F648. NO PROBLEM THERE. My problem can be found when running the compiler for a target like 18F458 or 18F4580 (those I have tested). I use SourceBoost IDE Version 6.25 Compare like ptest1.s1_charlie == ptest2.s2_charlie WORKING OK :-) ptest1.s1_charlie == s->s2_charlie WORKING OK :-) p->s1_charlie == ptest2.s2_charlie NOT OK :-( p->s1_charlie == s->s2_charlie
×
×
  • Create New...