Howard Winter wrote:
>> What really boggles the mind however, is that whatever irresponsible
>> programmer software you used to program the first 16F648A didn't
>> give you an error message.
>
> Errr... blame Microchip!  It's the ICD2 using MPLAB 7.0  It just
> says: "Target device PIC16F648A found, revision = Rev 01".  When I go
> to program it with pprog10.hex, it says: "...Erasing Part
> ...Programming Program Memory (0x0 - 0xC97)"  and then goes on to do
> the Config bits.  No mention of EEPROM by the way.  It then verifies
> "OK".

That's even worse than I thought.  Not only did it accept invalid addresses
without even a warning, but then claimed to have *verified* them.  Ugh.
Apparently it silently ignores data at any address outside the target chip's
range.

That does make it possible to define extra data in a HEX file at unused
addresses, like the target chip type.  I guess the microchip tools won't
care.  I had always figured they would barf and therefore not persued this
much.  I should give this some serious thought.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist