gnupic: gpasm (fwd)


Previous by date: 2 Jan 2002 22:11:15 -0000 Re: CUMP and programmers for Linux, Rogier Wolff
Next by date: 2 Jan 2002 22:11:15 -0000 Re: gpasm (fwd), Craig Franklin
Previous in thread:
Next in thread: 2 Jan 2002 22:11:15 -0000 Re: gpasm (fwd), Craig Franklin

Subject: gpasm (fwd)
From: Scott Dattalo ####@####.####
Date: 2 Jan 2002 22:11:15 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201021408330.2236-100000@ruckus.brouhaha.com>

Posting this for John Duncan:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 07:52:44 +1000
From: John Duncan ####@####.####
To: ####@####.####
Subject: gpasm

Scott,

Pls excuse me for mailing you off list.  i have tried to send the email
below to the list, but for some reason, the mail server that I go through
can't seem to send it.  You will probably know what is going on.  Could you
pls forward it to the list.  It may be of interest to others

Rgds

John

>Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 09:50:44 +1000
>To: ####@####.####
>From: John Duncan ####@####.####
>Subject: gpasm
>
>Hello Listers,
>
>I have recently had a bit of a problem with gpasm, that I am hoping
>someone may be able to explain.  I have an include file of subroutines
forreading and writing MChip I2C EEPROMS, that I use in my hobby
>dataloggers.  The type of EEPROM chip is defined in the main source file,
before the file is included.
>
>Much of the code is common for different EEPROM chips, but the steps to
>address a 24LC16B are different from a 24LC256.  The diffences are defined
as macros and these macros are invoked in the body of the code.  The macros
to use are selected by the type of EEPROM chip defined.
>
>I have been using gpasm 0.9.6 for some time.  I have recently upgraded to
0.9.14 , but have not had to assemble this code, until a couple of days
ago.   gpasm 0.9.6 would assemble the code, without sneezing, but 0.9.14
will generate a warning telling me that I am callng a macro in column 1,
when in fact what I am doing is defining a macro, but that macro is not in
a block for which the condition is true.  I don't think that my description
make a lot of sense, so I have included below a small test file that
demonstates what I mean
>
>
>; mactest.asm --
>;   A simple test to recreate the funny with conditional
>;   selection of macros
>
>
>      list p=16f84
>
>	ifdef foo
>mac1 macro
>	nop
>	sleep
>	endm
>	endif
>
>	ifndef foo
>mac1 macro
>	nop
>	clrwdt
>	endm
>	endif
>
>	org 0
>	mac1
>
>        end
>
>Assemble with and without defining foo
>
>condamine:~/d501/picsrc$ gpasm mactest.asm
>mactest.asm:10:Warning [206] Found call to macro in column 1.
>condamine:~/d501/picsrc$
>
>condamine:~/d501/picsrc$ gpasm -Dfoo mactest.asm
>mactest.asm:17:Warning [206] Found call to macro in column 1.
>condamine:~/d501/picsrc$
>
>
>Could this be a bug or am I missing something?
>
>Cheers
>
>JD


Previous by date: 2 Jan 2002 22:11:15 -0000 Re: CUMP and programmers for Linux, Rogier Wolff
Next by date: 2 Jan 2002 22:11:15 -0000 Re: gpasm (fwd), Craig Franklin
Previous in thread:
Next in thread: 2 Jan 2002 22:11:15 -0000 Re: gpasm (fwd), Craig Franklin


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.