Issue 14: Validation process http://code.google.com/p/jallib/issues/detail?id=14
Comment #8 by robhamerling: During testing of about 60 PICs with their respective blink-an-LED sample programs I encountered several errors or omissions in the device files. Causes: (1) errors in MPLAB files, (2) deviations between MPLAB and datasheets, (3) inconsistencies in the naming of registers, (4) complex descriptions of fuse bits (5) errors in the dev2jal script, .... When problems arise with this very simple blink-an-led program, more problems may be expected when testing other PICs. So it would be best test all PICs! For the baseline and midrange I'm confident the tests cover almost the whole range and the quality of these device files is pretty good. But I'm not so convinced this applies to the 18F family: relatively few have been tested and these PICs are much more complex. On the other hand this family it much better structured. Testing is somewhat more difficult because the larger PICs do not come in PDIP package. Well, this may not be very constructive for the validation process, but I wanted to log my test experiences.... -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue. You may adjust your issue notification preferences at: http://code.google.com/hosting/settings --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
