Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> By *exclusively* using the RES directive for RAM, you should
> be safe against that kind of misstakes.

RES is already the *only* means of specifying RAM variables.  The assembler
can't be blamed if some people use EQU to define constants that happen to
have the values overlapping with RAM addresses, then use these constants to
access RAM, because it has no way to know you are misusing the constants in
that way.

Hmm.  That brings up an interesting point.  While the assembler can't tell
the intention of an EQU statement, it can tell how the symbol is used.  It
could and should issue a warning if a symbol defined with EQU or CBLOCK is
used in a context where it's obviously a memory address.  For example:

  myvar  equ    32     ;boneheaded variable definition attempt

         movf   myvar, w ;this could generate a warning


*****************************************************************
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