Re:

>As I said before, am I missing something or am I just fighting a
>recalcitrant compiler?

It may be worth your while to write the equivalent function directly
in C, and look at the compiler's assembly-language output. or, put
another way, write some C code that causes the compiler to uses
movwf, and then copy that style.

My success with PIC C when writing assembly routines (I do it only
rarely) is to mimic exactly what I see in the .LST outputs of the
compiler.

I believe you'll find that _all_ movwf instructions that are
compiler-generated apply a mask to the argument -- without the "exact
same thinking" the compiler won't be happy with your assembly-level
stuff.

Out of curiosity, why write this in assembly at all?
--

  ______________________________________
   Andrew E. Kalman, Ph.D.   aek@pumpkininc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics