Guys, I read your discussion with a sad amusement... I have had an
oportunity to do some big projects with 20 more programmers for past 30
years. I do know every programmer has his/her own style and there is no way
how to change this. Olin, you told me lately the Microchip's assembler is
the worst you have seen. What the heck you are talking about? If I weren't
been lazy and old, I would write a assembler by the modern way....
{something in a style of PHP)... There wouldn't be any definition of
variables and you loose the reason to discuss if it's better to use RES or
CBLOCK

BTW ... I use assembler parts when there is a problem with timing only. The
C is a solution.

Regards

Igor




-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On
Behalf Of Andrew Warren
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 12:47 AM
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PIC]: How do I get variable names to show up in 6.x watch


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

> > the watch window WILL show registers whose names are assigned
> > with EQU.
>
> Maybe that's a version 6 thing.  I just verified that symbols
> defined with EQU that have valid values for RAM addresses are
> definitely not available in the list of symbols to display in a
> watch window in version 5.

    Hmm... I'm using version 5.30.00, and it works fine there (and
    with every version prior to 5.30).

> > I see no compelling reason for anyone to switch from absolute
> > mode to relocatable just for the RES directive.
>
> There are lots of compelling reasons for relocatable mode.  I can
> see how some of the old timers may want to keep writing absolute
> code .... However, recommending absolute mode to newbies is just
> plain irresponsible.

    Note the careful phrasing: "SWITCH from absolute to relocatable
    JUST for res".  I wasn't suggesting that there's no reason to
    use relocatable mode, nor that I'd necessarily recommend absolute
    mode to a newbie.

    I don't know if I'd go as far as to call it irresponsible, but I
    do agree that it'd be a disservice to that person not to explain
    the advantages of relocatable over absolute mode.  Where we
    disagree, I think, is in our opinion of whether it's a good idea
    to also explain the advantages of absolute mode.

    And, now that I think about it, we also disagree on the
    IMPORTANCE of the difference; you think it's a huge deal, and I
    don't think it makes all that much difference.  That's just a
    philosophical thing, of course, and I feel as strongly about some
    other aspects of programming style as you do about this one.

> Now c'mon Andy, you know all this.  This is right out of
> Introduction to Software 101.

    Actually, I'd like relocatable mode more if its "typing" were
    MORE strictly enforced.  If there were an assembler warning on
    every register-based instruction whose operand hadn't been
    defined by RES, I'd feel that RES was actually doing something
    SIGNIFICANTLY better than CBLOCK.

    Does MPASM already do that?

> You clearly like to find faults with my posts whenever you can

    Given your own penchant for public fault-finding, I'm certain
    you're not complaining... But just in case you ARE a little
    sensitive about it, consider this:  It wouldn't be any fun if it
    were easy.

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

--
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