gnupic: Re: [gnupic] org H'2100', EEPROM and "Warnung:Address exceeds maximum range for this processor."
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] =?iso-8859-1?q?org=09H=272100=27?=, EEPROM and "Warnung:Address exceeds maximum range for this processor."
From:
####@####.####
Date:
28 Oct 2007 11:59:09 +0000
Message-Id: <200710281258.14272.ttww@gmx.de>
Am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 schrieb David:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:48:39 +0200
>
> ####@####.#### wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > @David Barnett:
> > Thanks for the new release !
>
> Glad to hear it's getting some use!
>
> > with the new gputils version (gpasm-0.13.5 beta) I will get a
> > "Warnung: Address exceeds maximum range for this processor"
> > message...
> >
> > This happens at the
> > org H'2100'
> > directive during declaring eeprom data for the 12F625 pic...
> >
> > Are there new ways to for storing eeprom data or is this a
> > new "feature" ;-) ?
>
> Good question. I hadn't thought much about the eeprom addresses on the
> small PICs. I suppose a quick fix would be to raise the max address to
> 0x217F for that MCU (and similarly for others), but that will defeat
> the purpose for those MCUs because there won't be a warning when you
> first go over address 0x2000. It looks like ultimately we'll also need
> the eeprom bounds separately in gpasm.
The definition may be: 0x2100-0x21ff[,0x03000-0x030ff...] (But I think
that's clear :-))
>
> I don't know offhand... are there any MCU's with more than 2
> non-consecutive ROM address ranges?
I don't know also... Maybe there are techniques/ways to declare
eeprom data for i2c connected eeproms (I'm only guessing...)
> This bounds checking for absolute
> mode may be much stickier than I thought...
As usual...
>
> David Barnett
BTW: Are there also bounds checking for goto/call ? (Sorry, maybe a
beginner question...)
tia,
Thomas Welsch
