> But look, it's obvious the original poster experienced an ASM
> portability problem in the source code he was using because of
> differences in instruction sets of target processors

I'm curious as to why his 452 .inc didn't take care of it, particularly
as the sample code appears to be intended for the 18 series (if
you re-read the OP)

"PICDEM 2+ sample code for PIC18F452"

Not that I've never had to tinker with the .inc files. This sounds more
like a compiler fault that should have been found in factory debugging

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