Post by thread:CCS Compiler - locating an ARRAY

I'm using the CCS C compiler. (No "I told you so's" from Andy or other Hitech fans) and I'm trying to specify an array in banked ram. I think the proper syntax is: int arrayvariable[15]; #byte arrayvariable[0] = 0x71 This is supposed to allocate an array of 15 8-bit registers between 0x71 and 0x7F. Is this actually correct? Lawrence Lile

Hi Lawrence, I think it should this: #byte arrayvariable=0x71; ivan. On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Lawrence Lile wrote: {Quote hidden}> I'm using the CCS C compiler. (No "I told you so's" from Andy or other > Hitech fans) > > and I'm trying to specify an array in banked ram. I think the proper syntax > is: > > > int arrayvariable[15]; > #byte arrayvariable[0] = 0x71 > > > This is supposed to allocate an array of 15 8-bit registers between 0x71 > and 0x7F. Is this actually correct? > > > Lawrence Lile >

> I'm trying to specify an array in banked ram. I think the proper syntax > is: > > int arrayvariable[15]; > #byte arrayvariable[0] = 0x71 > > This is supposed to allocate an array of 15 8-bit registers between 0x71 > and 0x7F. Is this actually correct? |I think it should this: |#byte arrayvariable=0x71; Does anyone know whether there's any way to pass a constant-subscripted array element by reference to an inline procedure (or if current CCS allows for it?) If I code: void dumb_inc(char &foo) { foo++; } char bar[16]; void main(void) { dumb_inc(bar[0]); dumb_inc(bar[2]); } My compiler produces code which increments bar[0] twice, rather than incrementing bar[0] once and bar[2] once.

Hi, John Payson wrote: > Does anyone know whether there's any way to pass a constant-subscripted > array element by reference to an inline procedure (or if current CCS > allows for it?) > > If I code: > > void dumb_inc(char &foo) > { > foo++; > } > > char bar[16]; > > void main(void) > { > dumb_inc(bar[0]); > dumb_inc(bar[2]); > } I don't know if in your application, that the addresses to be incremented will be placed in the array bar[] or an element in bar[]. To be C compliant, bar[0] and bar[2] should be passed as pointer: dumb_inc(bar+0); dumb_inc(bar+2); because the parameter in dumb_inc() is defined as pointer. But when I tried to test in CCS it produces a 'Different levels of indirection' error. Maybe a hardcoded FSR function maybe the only solution. Sorry for my english, its not my native language :). regards, Reggie -- e-mail: spam_OUTrberdinTakeThisOuTbigfoot.com ICQ#: 31651436 URL: http://www.bigfoot.com/~rberdin

> void dumb_inc(char &foo) > { > foo++; > } > > char bar[16]; > > void main(void) > { > dumb_inc(bar[0]); > dumb_inc(bar[2]); > } |I don't know if in your application, that the addresses to be |incremented will be placed in the array bar[] or an element in bar[]. |To be C compliant, bar[0] and bar[2] should be passed as pointer: | dumb_inc(bar+0); | dumb_inc(bar+2); |because the parameter in dumb_inc() is defined as pointer. But when I |tried to test in CCS it produces a 'Different levels of indirection' |error. CCS offers a C++ -style pass-by-reference option for function calls (hence the "&" before argument "foo"). If function dumb_inc is as above and I code: void main(void) { char i,j; dumb_inc(i); dumb_inc(j); } and the compiler decides to expand dumb_inc inline (which it likely would), the code produced would simply be movf i,w incf i,f movf j,w incf j,f which is as it should be [well, the useless movf's aren't too wonderful, but...] The problem is that CCS does not properly compute the array addresses when using pass-by-reference. Oh well...