On 21/05/2011 23:37, cdb wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 09:00:53 -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> :: First, this wouldn't have assembled with MPASM since opcodes must
> :: start in column 2 or later.  If you're using a nonstandard assembler,
> you
> :: should point that out.
>
> Not wanting to start a bun/bagel fight, but it did format as the second
> column in my email client when viewing it, and he does use banksel in the
> called eeprom subroutines.
>

It did on mine too..
@ Olin - what mail client are you using?

> As you intimate it would be useful to see the pin jumper code to see if
> this is where things go awry.

Yes, might be helpful to see the schematic too, along with a more=20
specific account of the bugs. I can't recall the exact differences=20
between a 648 and 690 but I suspect it's something to do with the=20
initialisation - ANSEL, ANSELH, comparators and such being set correctly.
Writing some debug code to test each bug separately (e.g. start with the=20
basics and do things like making sure each pin is set up properly), or=20
using MPLAB SIM to step through the code might be useful.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.