Ken Pergola wrote :

> I posted my original question on the Microchip
> forums, and Olin answered why he does not think
> creating a binary library is a particularly good idea.

Yes, a big deal of the "features" in Olin's code, is managed
by the assembler. All that is lost with object libraries.

If one could have a kind of "ASM-LIB", where you had both
the benefit of "packaged" code in a single file, and at the
same time also had access to such things as conditionaly
incl/excl ASM code, or modifing code (literals) based on assembler
symbols setup from your main code, that would make "libraries"
more usefull.

Much like Olins env but where the different modules (such as
the UART_xxx.aspic module) could be truly shared and not
(as now) copied into each project (and often modified/tweaked).

Say you would like a library routine to handle an IR-diod. Then
the actual pin used for the diod will be fixed in the LIB routine.
Or is there any easy way to dynamicaly select a specific pin
and/or port (in ready built code, not in MPASM) ?

Anyway, with great dicipline and planning of your subroutine
interfaces, object libs could still be usuable...

>
> But in my case, a binary library appears to make sense (at
> least right now) and I think I will give it a shot. If I fall on
> my face in the mud witharrows in my back that's ok. :)

Absolutly, as long as you let *us* learn from it :-) :-)

Jan-Erik.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads