Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
06/12/10 03:09
Read: times


 
#176608 - Still no luck...
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Hi,

I'm still faced with the question of how to make sections of code visible to the compiler, conditional on the prior declaration of SFRs.

My problem is this: I make repeated references to the CKCON clock control SFR register in my code, so as to enable support for the X2 CPU clock operating mode. In my module's documentation I tell users how to install their own X2 CPU clock mode compatible, controller SFR register declaration header file, so that CKCON will be declared and the X2 mode code will compile.

Now I find that some controllers add a second clock control register called CKCON1, and that they inconveniently rename the original CKCON clock control register as CKCON0. The minute a register declaration header file for one of these controllers is substituted, my code breaks and I get the usual e-mail bombing.

One solution to the issue may simply be to add a long-winded set of instructions on how to deal with the occurence in my software manual. What I might prefer, however, is a method to selectively reference the variously named clock control register, depending on how it is named and declared in whatever SFR register definition header file may be in use.

Any valuable thoughts, anyone?

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn.



List of 34 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Conditional SFR Declaration?            01/01/70 00:00      
   ReDef            01/01/70 00:00      
   Preprocessor -vs- Compiler            01/01/70 00:00      
      Thanks...            01/01/70 00:00      
   A Loosely Related Query?            01/01/70 00:00      
      .h file            01/01/70 00:00      
         Yep, that works!            01/01/70 00:00      
            I would not            01/01/70 00:00      
               Good question...            01/01/70 00:00      
            A Rethink...            01/01/70 00:00      
               I don't know ... but            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Agree with Michael            01/01/70 00:00      
                  An overthink.            01/01/70 00:00      
               #including #includes            01/01/70 00:00      
                  totally?            01/01/70 00:00      
                     re: really?            01/01/70 00:00      
   Still no luck...            01/01/70 00:00      
      Like I said before....            01/01/70 00:00      
      HAL            01/01/70 00:00      
      just curious            01/01/70 00:00      
         Nicely workable solution found...            01/01/70 00:00      
            Post vandalised!            01/01/70 00:00      
               What do you mean ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                  I mean this...            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Vandalism Highly Doubted            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Thanks Michael.            01/01/70 00:00      
      Define a new sfr?            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: This assumes that location 0x8E is always the register            01/01/70 00:00      
         Simplest Solution?            01/01/70 00:00      
            I think HAL is less risky?            01/01/70 00:00      
               HAL very interesting...            01/01/70 00:00      
                  RE: might not be so immediately well understood            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Ah, now I see...            01/01/70 00:00      
                        No, you don't need a HAL header file for each variant!            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List