| ??? 01/10/11 09:01 Read: times |
#180492 - Close, but no cigar Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Matthew Lai said:
I know I expanded it right because substituting this line into the original file triggers the same error. No, that's not a valid conclusion - it might happen to be the case here, but you can't conclude that in general. To be sure that you have the exact expansion as seen by the compiler, you need to examine the preprocessor output; see the last 2 paragraphs here: http://www.8052.com/forum/read/29152 You'll have to check the SDCC documentation for the specific option(s) to get the preprocessor listing... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| sdcc internal error / C syntax | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| legality of indexing NULL pointer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bug | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| version | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| version revisited | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thank you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fixed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no snapshot | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| works | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 0 is special - but so is NULL. indexing around NULL is bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No guarantee that a NULL pointer points to any memory | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I know :-( | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use of __at ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What is "that way"? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the antique version.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| XBYTE macro | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Okay, then the following definition... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: David's remarks about volatility | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Close, but no cigar | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Avoid the 'volatile' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| instead of offsetting... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dereferencing a '_REG | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use of __at ? [ed] | 01/01/70 00:00 |