Hi Joep,
Joep Suijs wrote: > 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. > > 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). Microchip's intentions are not always obvious (to me). > 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. Stef's libs were for the old JAL. JalV2 is better, see below. > 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. With 'if defined(<name>)' you can check if <name> is a known variable. This allows conditional compilation based on the existence of registers. But this is not where I was looking for. I thought I could define an alias for the 'new' comparator registers to make them known as the old comparator registers (like I declare an alias PORTA for GPIO). But this should not be done for registers with a different functionality. Regards, Rob. -- Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
