I didn't say it worked with 0x08 vs BSR. I was troubleshooting and used the absolute address instead of the mnemonic to eliminate the possibility of the address the BSR label was pointing to was wrong. As it turns out, neither was to blame. The problem was I didn' turn off the analog inputs to make the=20 IO pins digital. Therefore it didn't work as expected. But the 0x08 or BSR label had nothing to do with the problem. Regards, Jim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [PIC]: PIC16F1827 PORTB Problem. > From: > Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 10:00 am > To: >=20 >=20 > > I still hold the belief that 0x08 vs BSR is not wrong.=20 > > Since BSR is at address 0x08, how can it be? >=20 > It is not wrong per se, but YOU are asking for free advice, and expecting= US to find out what 0x08 refers to. >=20 > If YOU cannot use the preferred mnemonic (and it is called this for a rea= son) then you end up with the situation that Olin was often on about - why = should we be bothered to work out what your code is doing if you don't supp= ly the simple things that make it easy for us to see where you went wrong. >=20 > The next problem arises when you suddenly decide that you need to reuse t= his code on a different processor, but the BSR register is at a different a= ddress. Microchip kindly supply a definition file that has the different ad= dress in it, and so when you assemble the code for the new processor, the a= ddress gets appropriately changed. >=20 > But I cannot work out why you would think that changing from BSR to 0x08 = would suddenly make the code work. If it wasn't working with the BSR in the= re, then it isn't going to work with the 0x08 in there. > --=20 > Scanned by iCritical. >=20 > --=20 > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .