Hi Seb,
Sebastien Lelong wrote: > > I'm quite lost on these "pragma inline" problems, can you confirm it's > working as expected on 16f family with 2.4h ? No exception ? If not, should > we consider migrating "Compiler:" field to ">= 2.4i" ? OK, here a summary: The primary target of using 'pragma inline' is to save stack levels. It may cost some code space, but it may as well save code space because of compiler optimizations. Problems with 'inline' appeared initially with the device files for the 18Fs with compiler version 2.4g (and maybe older versions). The problems seemed be solved with 2.4h, but re-appeared with the pic_data_eeprom library. The first attempt for 2.4i (22 Nov) did not solve all problems, but 2.4i of 26 Nov is OK. I have tested this library with 18F2620 (1 KB EEPROM!), 18F242, 16F916, 16f88, 16f690, 12F675 and all tests passed. Difficult to say for me if there are no exceptions for other PICs or for other libraries! The pic_data_eeprom library is already marked with 'compiler: >=2.4i'. I'll commit a newer version of pic_data_eeprom after I've done some more testing for issue 49. I think for the next release we should recommend 2.4i, and maybe even include it in the distribution. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
