Olin Lathrop <PICLIST@mitvma.mit.edu> wrote:

> [The MPASM manual] shows the H'FF' and 0xFF syntaxes as the only
> two choices for specifying hexadecimal constants assuming hex isn't
> the default radix.

    I'm aware that the manual shows only those two choices, and I
    can't blame Microchip for trying to let the 0FFh representation
    fade away, since it IS completely stupid.

    Nevertheless, Microchip's assembler understands the 0FFh syntax
    as well now as it did 10+ years ago.

> >    list p=pic16C54
> >    movlw 0ffh
> >    end
>
> Well, did it work?  Or do you not consider it worth your time to
> chase this either?

    Of course it worked.  If I have enough time to compose a reply to
    the PICLIST, I figure I also have the time to make as sure as I
    can that my reply is correct.  My posts to the list occasionally
    contain inaccurate information, but never because I believe that
    my time is inherently more valuable than that of the person to
    whom I'm responding.

    -Andy

=== Andrew Warren -- aiw@cypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu