> > while running the system.  Microchip is funny in this respect; they
> > specifically state that stack overflow isn't indicated, yet I can't see
> > where it would be that tough for them to actually implement it.
>
>This wouldn't be much use once your units got to the field.  For
>development
>they have chips with special bond out used in the ICE, which can trap on
>stack underflow and overflow.

I guess I don't see your point.  If you're waiting until your product gets
put into general use to determine whether or not your code overflows the
stack, then you're doing something wrong.  A nice handy flag bit would help,
as they've got tons of free bits in existing SFR registers already.  Maybe
the chip costs more this way, I don't know, but it might be worth it.  Maybe
they just want to sell their ICEs.

I'm strictly speaking in terms of development.  And yes, for *proper*
development or commercial products, an ICE would be quite handy, but for the
poor-man's debugging process, a flag bit stored in a RAM location would be
more than helpful, which I'm just saying could be done probably in a simple
way by Microchip.  The MPLAB simulator detects it, but the chip doesn't...
that's funny, especially when it can be incredibly difficult to simulate a
complex system.

Regardless of all this, I'm still in need of a more efficient method to
determine all this, rather than manually paging through 2000 lines of code.
Any other suggestions are welcome.

--Andrew
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body