Search found 28 matches

I did a bit more digging. Turned out it is WDT after all. On the 5.075 initialization code finishes up in 107mS (at 31KHz clock) and on 5.093 it takes over 120mS. WDT should nominally be 124mS, but so ...

If you mean you are loading it with values using rand, then this is not done
during initialization. It is run time code. You can't load using a function
as part of the initialization.
The initiali ...

I've just built one with a 256 element array. The initialisation is identical between 5.075, and 5.093. Same data statements and loop to load it. Obviously you did not fill it with random values like ...

Have just built a minimum project, with you published 'main', using
5.075, and 5.093, and the initialization is identical.

I imagine that's because there are no global variables to initialize in y ...

I have an application that works fine when I used compiler V5.075. Recently I have switched to V5.093, and the program no longer works. As far as I can tell it never reaches the main(). I mean MY main ...

Try these settings integrated into your code:

Thanks a lot, that worked. I guess compiler is trying to be smarter than it is capable of.

I would prefer it to issue a warning if fuses are not ...

I read their post as they wanted to power on the chip in LPRC and then switch to 32MHz later. That's what I was addressing. I may have read their post wrong though.

This exactly the scenario. I t ...

I don't care if it is correct settings for 32MHz.

I want to start chip at a slow clock LPRC.

Command line:

"C:\PROGRA~2\PICC\CCSCON.exe" out="build/default/production\_ext\1472" ../foot-board-main.c +FD +DF +CC +Y=9 +EA +DF +LN +T +A +M +J +EA +Z -P #__PIC24FJ64GA ...

ok I already found a solution - bra 0. Hm no, compiler does not take that
.

Yes it is basically a nop, but one that takes two cycles to execute.

I can't call delay_cycles from inside the #asm b ...

with microchip assembler I can use the following construction:

Goto $+1

where $ denotes current PC. Is there equivalent syntax for use with inline assembler with CCS ?

I'm fine with const objects being in ROM. It is a good thing. Does not matter though. If we even have "const" in language, it should be supported and efforts should be made to prevent const ...

Well ok, I'm passing a pointer to const to a function that accepts non-const pointer. This should be a compile time error. It works correctly if I remove const.

Hitech is now Microchip. I'm trying XC now.

V 5.026