Byron Jeff wrote 2012-04-25 14:16:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 01:52:51PM +0200, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>
>>
>> Byron Jeff wrote 2012-04-25 13:25:
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:44:45PM +0200, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Byron Jeff wrote 2012-04-25 12:30:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:16:06AM +0200, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>>>>> Byron Jeff wrote 2012-04-25 04:51:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     >    Note you can use BANKSEL instead of the movlb if you like,
>>>>>>     >    which will only generate the movlb if the bank changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying that BANKSEL in some way tracks the current
>>>>>> state of the bank-bits? Are you sure? I think BANKSEL
>>>>>> always will create the apropriate MOVLB command.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Not an MPASM user, so I'm unsure.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is possible when writing *own* macros, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Olin Lathrops tool-set has been like that "always".
>>>> With some complementary macros to "invalidate" the
>>>> saved setting after returning from a CALL and so on.
>>>>
>>>> But the question is/was about BANKSEL i MPASM, not ?
>>>
>>> Not exactly. Dwayne wanted to keep the 302 warnings on, but use some fo=
rm
>>> of macros and defines to check the current bank, whether or not it was
>>> generated with BANKSEL or MOVLB. It's not clear if his set of macros
>>> guaranteed that the bank bits RP0/RP1 were set correctly or not. What I=
've
>>> generated will generate both the MOVLB and will track what BSR is set t=
o.
>>> So as long as the code is straight line it'll only generate 302 warning=
s
>>> when the register is not in sync with current value of BSR.
>>>
>>> BAJ
>>>
>>
>> OK, I think I see now. :-)
>>
>> Your reference to BANKSEL (that I quoted above) was "when used
>> inside your own macro", not to BANKSEL i general, right ?
>
> Actually I was asking about BANKSEL in general. But it's clear now that i=
t
> doesn't track.
>
>>
>> Of course, if the BANKSEL is never run at all, it will not
>> generate any code either... :-)
>
> Correct. So it can be used in my macro. In fact it may be a good idea.
> Using BANKSEL would backport my macro back to the older family of chips t=
oo
> because BANKSEL will properly twiddle the appropriate bits, whereas mine
> specifically does a MOVLB, which is an enhanced 16F only instruction.
> Personally I'm not pressed because I'm never planning on moving back to t=
he
> older chips ever. With enhanced chips in every package size, I cannot see=
 a
> good reason to every move back.
>
> BAJ
>

Ah, OK. :-)

Case closed. It's always good to clear out the details, it's
where the devil lives after all, not ? :-)

Jan-Erik.



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