Hi Olin,


Olin Lathrop wrote:
> 
> PPA wrote:
>> The MPLAB configuration bits dialog shows this bit set or reset in the
>> result column but it cannot be changed from here.
> 
> You should never set configuration bits there anyway.  Think of that
> dialog
> as read-only.  Always set the configuration bits in the code.  That way
> they
> end up in the HEX file, and are documented.
> 
I know, Olin: I'm not a rookie on that point; it was just for saying there
is 
something strange here.


Olin Lathrop wrote:
> 
>> My problem is that I do not use MPLAB, but I use MPASM/MPLINK & PK2 from
>> another tool, so the DEBUG bit is cleared by default (0 is ON, too bad)
>> and
>> the device crashes (do not start?) as expected and I cannot find any way
>> to
>> build a project with this bit set...
> 
> It's just a bit.  You can set it any way you like in your code.  Remember,
> the fancy __CONFIG and CONFIG directives and the mnemonics in the
> processor
> include file are just convenience wrapper.  I never use the bit mnemonics
> because they make it too difficult to document each bit and give a idea of
> the available choices.  Your tools still let you write "0" and "1", right?
> 
I like the new CONFIG BITITEM=VALUE syntax. I know that's not your cup of
tea.
These BITITEMs have nothing to do with .inc files that are only used by old
__CONFIG
directive that is now warned by the assembler. I don't know where the list
of 
configuration bits is taken from - maybe hard coded in MPASM? Iin this case,
I'm stuck
with this syntax I agree. 
Again, it was only for saying that there is something strange here too. 
I've checked GPASM too but unfortunately it does not support these new
processors yet.
 

Olin Lathrop wrote:
> 
>> Why this bit has vanished from datasheets / .inc files but is still
>> functioning as expected?
> 
> Sometimes Microchip screws up.  This kind of screwup is actually quite
> rare,
> but I've very occasionally seen a mismatch between the datasheet and the
> name of a bit in the include file.  It happens.  Report it, and it will
> probably be fixed in the next rev of the datasheet.  Make sure you're
> right
> before reporting it though.
> 
A bit name mismatch I saw some too, but a bit that has disapeared this is
the first time...
Well, I'll report it for sure. I just wanted to know if somebody had seen
this before...
And I'm sure enough that with a bit that do something in a processor, that
MPLAB 
uses internally and that is not documented in the datasheet, it would be
sure enough 
that something is missing somewhere isn't it?

Thanks for your comments Olin.


-----
Best regards,

Philippe.

http://www.pmpcomp.fr Pic Micro Pascal for all! 
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/PIC18LF1xKxx---I-want-my-DEBUG-bit%21-tp24640212p24645665.html
Sent from the PIC - [PIC] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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