gnupic: Re: gpasm directives vs. MPASM
Subject:
Re: gpasm directives vs. MPASM
From:
"Andrew E. Mileski" ####@####.####
Date:
3 Dec 2015 23:50:46 -0000
Message-Id: <5660D53A.60008@isoar.ca>
On 2015-12-03 03:25, Molnár Károly wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:22:26 -0500
> "Andrew E. Mileski" ####@####.#### wrote:
>>
>> I would expect IDLOCS to be treated like any other section label when
>> --mpasm-compatible is specified.
>
> The gpasm works a little differently.
That's my point though. I'd expect it be source compatible with --mpasm-compatible
If that's not a goal, then I'll just quietly disappear.
> So in your case so that should be used:
>
> LIST p=16f1829
>
> __IDLOCS H'048C'
>
> END
>
> The compiler will do this:
>
> 0x8000: 0x0C
> 0x8001: 0x08
> 0x8002: 0x04
> 0x8003: 0x00
>
> That is, a single 16-bit value stored in four 4-bit part. This is a hardware limitation.
> Therefore the __IDLOCS directive can be used only once in the 12-bit and 14-bit devices.
>
> See: http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/40001440E.pdf, page 51
Erm... I can find no mention of a 4 bit limitation per location for this processor.
Excerpt from DS41390D
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/41390D.pdf
"3.1 User ID Location
A user may store identification information (user ID) in four designated
locations. The user ID locations are mapped to 8000h-8003h. Each location is 14
bits in length. Code protection has no effect on these memory locations. Each
location may be read with code protection enabled or disabled."
~~ Andrew E. Mileski
