CCS C Software and Maintenance Offers
FAQFAQ   FAQForum Help   FAQOfficial CCS Support   SearchSearch  RegisterRegister 

ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CCS does not monitor this forum on a regular basis.

Please do not post bug Reports on this forum. Send them to support@ccsinfo.com

#ASM problem with 5.108

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CCS Forum Index -> General CCS C Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 17981

View user's profile Send private message

#ASM problem with 5.108
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 12:26 am     Reply with quote

Just had an odd problem with some old code using #ASM/#ENDASM
refusing to compile on 5.108. Gives an error 53.
Compiling for PIC18.
Same code compiles on 5.107.
Their examples (or at least ex_glint.c), give the same problem.

CCS have confirmed it is as a problem and are meant to be doing a new
release in the next couple of days to fix it.

So 'beware' to anyone using assembler with 5.108... Sad
hmmpic



Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Posts: 312
Location: Denmark

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 4:09 am     Reply with quote

Sorry for that, and thanks for the info.

For me it have always looked like this:
All new release is beta build, and will be followed by a newer release, there is a bug fix for the latest release:-)

Therefore i have suggested CCS many times to release beta build. And only do the release when they have tested it.
The release log is for nothing too it only show so little of what is changed.
CCS never reply me on my suggestion...
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 17981

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 4:41 am     Reply with quote

Yes, readme.txt at one time was being updated, now it gives almost
nothing. I think also the testing they carry out seems to have dropped
off in recent releases, making the new releases closer to alpha than
beta...
temtronic



Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 8511
Location: Greensville,Ontario

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 5:22 am     Reply with quote

Let's face it guys, there's just tooooo many versions of PICs being made these days ! How anyone can check out every feature of a compiler on literally 100s of different but similar PICs is kinda mind blowing.

We should go back to 16C84s ! Life was a lot simpler and easier , yeah, when us dinosaurs roamed..... Laughing
hmmpic



Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Posts: 312
Location: Denmark

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 7:05 am     Reply with quote

@temtronic ...Therefore releasing a beta will be so much more the case!
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 17981

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 7:10 am     Reply with quote

True.
However for most chips 95% of the routines and handling will be the same
as their brethren. This will also be the same or similar to their ancestors.
The recent problems with parts of the newer compilers are in a few cases
incorrect handling of a new feature, or miss-entering feature details in
the database. However far more seem to be attempts by CCS to (potentially)
change/improve things. These need to be properly checked when added to
the release compilers. In some cases I suspect they have lost people who
originally wrote things, and then a new programmer tries to change things
without realising all the implications of what they are doing. Sad
PrinceNai



Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 315
Location: Montenegro

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 10:58 pm     Reply with quote

Quote:


Let's face it guys, there's just tooooo many versions of PICs being made these days ! How anyone can check out every feature of a compiler on literally 100s of different but similar PICs is kinda mind blowing.

We should go back to 16C84s ! Life was a lot simpler and easier , yeah, when us dinosaurs roamed..... Laughing


From my perspective, right. Microchip will soon have to go to 5 digit nomenclature behind 12, 16, 18, 24 or 32 families. F, K, L or N , God knows what sub species. It is hard just to find the right chip, let alone keep up the compiler with all the differences. It would be nice to have "one ring to rule them all", but I really feel sorry for the guys at CCS. Harder than with Apple. 77 phones, all being the same from 5s upward, with one minor "upgrade"each.
PrinceNai



Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 315
Location: Montenegro

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 11:09 pm     Reply with quote

BTW, you can't buy any. They all go to Philips toothbrushes and other 10 million series products.
PrinceNai



Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 315
Location: Montenegro

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 11:48 pm     Reply with quote

On the other hand, I also sympathize with the developers at the Microchip. They are the developers, paid to develop. So they do develop. What new they are developing is anybody's guess. Features unknown to CCS, beyond anything C or even Z can handle?
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 17981

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2022 2:24 am     Reply with quote

Just been fixed in 5.109.

Now to see what else has gone wrong...
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CCS Forum Index -> General CCS C Discussion All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group