2008/10/17, Rob Hamerling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > But after some datasheet reading I found out that different > register name means in general also different functionality. So > normalizing maybe not feasible.
Hi Rob, I don't know the details of this specific issue, but in general different registers mean different handling (which go beyond the the register name). Stef handled this by if-statements on the pic type (a constant!), which give conditional compile. And the good thing of conditional compile is that the compiler skips the part if it is not requires and does not generate errors on non-existing registers. To make this construct better maintainable, we could add a level of indirection by defining a 'version number' for a peripheral and assign this (constant) based on the pic type. Afaik there is no way to detect if a specific register name exists (without generating an error if it does not), so determining the version based on the register occurance is not possible for the compiler. We could make this part of the include-generation. But this gives an extra depency, makes it more complex to understand and puts an additional burden on the maintainer of the conversion script. Joep --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
