Sergio,

I got this working last night -- was actual quite simple indeed.

Thanks much.
-Neil.


On Friday 13 June 2003 00:35, Picdude scribbled:
> On Thursday 12 June 2003 23:16, Sergio Masci scribbled:
> > > Possibility 1....
> > >
> > >    Case:
> > >        movf HIGH FunctionPointers,W
> > >        movwf PCLATH
> > >        movf SOME_VAR,W
> > >        addwf PCL,F
> > >    FunctionPointers:
> > >        goto Option1Actions
> > >        goto Option2Actions
> >
> > try it this way instead
> >
> >     Case:
> >         movlw     HIGH FunctionPointers
>
> Oops... yes, that should've been "movlw".
>
> >         movwf     PCLATH
> >         movf     SOME_VAR,W
> >         addlw     LOW FunctionPointers
> >         btfsc    STATUS,C
> >         incf     PCLATH
> >         movwf     PCL
> >
> >     FunctionPointers:
> >         goto Option1Actions
> >         goto Option2Actions
>
> Ahhh.... you're computing instead.  That's good.
>
> > Your function pointer table may also need to look like this:
> >
> >     FunctionPointers:
> >         movlw    high Option1Actions
> >         movwf    PCLATH
> >         goto     Option1Actions
> >         nop
> >
> >         movlw    high Option2Actions
> >         movwf    PCLATH
> >         goto     Option2Actions
> >         nop
> >
> >         movlw    high Option3Actions
> >         movwf    PCLATH
> >         goto     Option3Actions
> >         nop
>
> Hopefully won't.  I'm doing this on a 16F628 (2k), and hoping that I ca=
n
> squeeze it into a 16F627 (1k), so page boundaries mean nothing to me!
>
> In this case as well, I'd need to multiply SOME_VAR by 4 before adding =
it
> to the future PC value.
>
> Must try this tomorrow.
>
> Cheers,
> -Neil.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.