| ??? 08/25/08 15:36 Modified: 08/25/08 15:39 Read: times |
#157743 - correct cde ---- Responding to: ???'s previous message |
did you have using 2 in the function header ? No I did not. But I had two writes to two different variables. The first generated an absolute address which was wrong:
mov @r0,rb0r5 (A605) NO, NO, NO the absolute address is CORRECT for any function using 0 for register R5 and the second generated the correct code: mov 21h,r5 (8D21) the correct code directly followed the bad code. THERE IS NO BAD CODE !!!!!!!!! Maybe if I put a using 2 in the function it would have worked. I did not try that. no maybe about it. Do not automatically assume that if something does not work as you expect the compiler is defective, it may as well be your use of the compiler that does not adhere to the way it (is supposed to) works. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Keil C51 Compiler Bug | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| version? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Version | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This is what Keil does | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not if you follow thw rules | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| And also call from elsewhere? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Revision... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Using 2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| did you have using 2 in the function header ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Using 2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| correct cde ---- | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Using 2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| people like it working | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Eee PC? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| HiTech vs Keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
OCG C compiler for 8051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| incorrect code in a different place? | 01/01/70 00:00 |