>  If I'm understanding this error correctly, it would seem that I'm going
>  beyond the 8 levels of interrupts that the stack can take care of.

Remember that it isn't JUST interrupts- any other CALL statements
will push an address onto the stack.  So, if you have a function that
calls a function that...on down, and you're in the "deepest" function
and it happens to be 8 calls later, if an interrupt occurs, you'll get a
stack overflow.  That could cause an overflow to occur at a spot in
the code where no CALL is apparent.

Also, if you GOTO out of a CALL function, you'll leave a dead address
on the stack.  Do this too many times and you'll get an overflow,
even if you don't have a lot of CALLs within functions.

The solution depends on the cause:  insert critical sections where
interrupts are disallowed because of potential stack depth problems,
reduce layers of CALLs, or make DARN sure every CALL has an
associated RETURN.

Mike H.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist