You are using 'anonymous' structs/unions. I always found this potentially
problematical, so I never use it. If you do your definition like this:

> typedef union {
>         struct
>         {
>             unsigned ENC1UP                    :1;
>             unsigned ENC1DN                    :1;
>             unsigned ENC2UP                    :1;
>             unsigned ENC2DN                    :1;
>             unsigned ENC3UP                    :1;
>             unsigned ENC3DN                    :1;
>             unsigned ENC4UP                    :1;
>             unsigned ENC4DN                    :1;
>         } bits;
>         struct
>         {
>             unsigned   all                             :8;
>         } all;
>  } T;

Then you can say:

T t;
t.bits.ENC3DN =3D 1;
t.all.all  =3D 0;

~ Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf
> Of Josh Koffman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 8:24 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: [PIC] Bit Field Setup
>=20
> Hi all,
>=20
> I'm trying to define a status register in XC8. I'd like to be able to
reference
> individual bits, but also be able to say, clear the variable as a whole.
>=20
> I currently have it defined as this:
>=20
>=20
> } EncStatus_t;
>=20
> In another part of the code, I define a variable using the typedef
EncStatus_t.
>=20
> In my code, I have two lines that try to write to that variable:
>=20
>    EncStatus.ENC1DN =3D 1;
>    EncStatus =3D 0;                  // Clear encoder status register
>=20
> The first line works perfect. The second line throws an error though -
illegal
> conversion between types - int -> volatile union.
>=20
> I understand the basic problem here, but I can't seem to fix it. I've
spent a
> bunch of time looking at the header file for my processor, to see how I
can
> write to both PORTB and PORTBbits.RB0 successfully. Near as I can tell,
it's
> because both of those variables are explicitly being declared at the same
> address, not because there's anything fancy in the union.
>=20
> So...is there a way to deal with this when I don't know where the variabl=
e
will
> be assigned?
>=20
> To be clear, this isn't a work stopping problem, I'd just like to know if
there's a
> way to do this that is efficient. After all, I can always just clear each
bit
> individually.
>=20
> Thanks!
>=20
> Josh
> --
> A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
>         -Douglas Adams
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

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