gnupic: Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress


Previous by date: 25 Jan 2006 01:16:29 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Chen Xiao Fan
Next by date: 25 Jan 2006 01:16:29 +0000 Re: [gnupic] need pic18fxxx programmer!!, Martin Klingensmith
Previous in thread: 25 Jan 2006 01:16:29 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Chen Xiao Fan
Next in thread:

Subject: Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress
From: Michael Ballbach ####@####.####
Date: 25 Jan 2006 01:16:29 +0000
Message-Id: <20060125011625.GF23249@wayreth.rten.net>

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:06:13AM +0800, Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> Michael Ballbach wrote:
> > What is interesting about this is that it means that after linking
> > object files together, the HEX file will not contain defaults for
> > configuration bytes that you don't specifically specify. However, when
> > using relative code, it does seem to fill in the defaults.
> 
> I think you mean "when using absolute code, it does seem to fill in
> the defaults."

Yes, this is what I meant.

> I agree with you that it is a good practice to list all the
> configuration word explicitly. And this leads to an easy solution: ban
> the use of separated configuration words for gpasm for relocatable
> mode code. I think this "lazy" solution is a good solution. ;-)

I think it is _alright_ too, I don't think it would be a hardship on
most people. I can imagine someone writing something and separating out
the USB related CONFIG statements to their USB object, but I personally
think of the configuration bytes as a per project thing, not a per
module thing.

> As for the solutions to allow separated configuration words, I do not
> know the internals of gputils. So maybe Craig and Scott can comment on
> that.

I haven't heard about any of these patches from anyone either than you,
so I will wait until there is feedback from the maintainers, and keep
them on my page until then. Thanks a lot for your help.

> The problem only pops up when viewing object file created with MPASM.
> There is a fix offset of 13 hours and it reports GMT+21. Where is time
> zone GMT+21? ;-)

hehe - I see.

> I do not think your patch introduces the bug. There may be some
> problems with the original gpvo code. It is not so much a problem
> anyway.

I dunno.

-- 
Michael Ballbach, N0ZTQ
####@####.#### -- PGP KeyID: 0xA05D5555
http://www.rten.net/

[Content type application/pgp-signature not shown. Download]

Previous by date: 25 Jan 2006 01:16:29 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Chen Xiao Fan
Next by date: 25 Jan 2006 01:16:29 +0000 Re: [gnupic] need pic18fxxx programmer!!, Martin Klingensmith
Previous in thread: 25 Jan 2006 01:16:29 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Chen Xiao Fan
Next in thread:


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.