gnupic: gpasm (fwd)
Subject:
Re: gpasm (fwd)
From:
Craig Franklin ####@####.####
Date:
2 Jan 2002 23:38:15 -0000
Message-Id: <3C339A46.F461FE7A@attbi.com>
It looks like a nuisance warning. No effect on the code. You can safely
ignore the warning, suppress the warning (errorlevel -206), or patch the
source.
This patch takes care of the problem. I havn't looked for related
problems. I will review it in detail for the 0.10.0 release.
To apply the patch:
tar -zxvf gpasm-0.9.14.tar.gz
zcat macrobug.diff.gz | patch -p0
Scott Dattalo wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
[Content type application/x-gzip not shown. Download]
