Correct.... that's what was implemented at first, we had about 40 access
functions. Now I'm just trying to find a working solution for both chips
since we never know what we are going to get for production.

-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list
[mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Jan-Erik Soderholm XA
(TN/PAC)
Sent: September 12, 2003 1:01 PM
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PIC]: More 18F458 Quirks


Jai Dhar wrote:
> If I let the linker automatically allocate where LowInt_access
> resides, I didn't have a problem (It placed it around 0x6000), but as soon
> as I restricted it to 0x3f00, the problem started again.

I think all this has something to do with the Program counter
jumping over the 4000h boarder. Note that it isn't just your
main CALL's to subroutines, but every GOTO inside any routine
(that happens to be placed around the address 4000h) have
this problem. So *any* GOTO that your C source produces will/may
show this problem depending on where the linker places the code.

The errata sheet doesn't say, but it would be interesting to
see what happens if any "skip" instruction is at 3FFEh so the
"target" of the skip is at 4002h ? The skip also modifies the
PC (in a way).

Jan-Erik.

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

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