Hi Seb,
On 2010/11/14 11:19, Sebastien Lelong wrote:
If possible, a deprecated message would help, but I don't know if it's
possible...
Yes, a possibility: Where an alias can be inserted a 'deprecated' msg
could be as well. But since there are quite a lot of situations where
this applies, it would mean quite some work.
Since MPLAB 8.60 has a lot of fixes I would like to release new device
files ASAP. But I'll probably do it in steps: First generate new device
files with MPLAB 8.60 whereby new 'incompatible' names / keywords are
replaced by those of the current device files and later migrate the
device files to the new names. With the first step I'll try to avoid
required changes of libraries. Luckily most most new names and keywords
are in fuse_def section, and these have no affect on the librairies, but
have it on samples!
BTW I've read that the release of MPLAB X has been delayed for a couple
of months. So there is some more time to think it over.
Do you have some sort of metrics ? How many PICs have changed regarding
PLLEN/PLLDIV ? How many PIC's families ? Are these PICs known to be
widely used ?
I use some scripts to analyse changes, but I have no statistics (yet).
I'm sure the number of differences will be big! It is somewhat
difficult to see ahead how useful an overview of changes will be and how
much work it is to produce it (and if it is worth the effort!).
Another point would be to allow, somehow in the code, to plug user code
defining his own device file, maybe based on an existing one. This way,
if for any reason his PIC isn't supported in current release, he has the
opportunity fill in missing code. And maybe report.
The compiler will help to show the differences in the device files and
the effects on libraries. But most of our samples (except the
blink-a-led) are for a limited number devices and use only a minor part
of the device files. Hopefully it is no different for user programs...
For example in one .dev file (e.g.
16f876) 'WRT enabled' means that writing of flash memory is allowed,
while in another .dev file (e.g. 16f876a) the same 'WRT enabled'
means writing of flash is NOT allowed!
So I understand this wasn't the case before, that is, in our current
device files.
The confusion is probably caused by its name: is WRT (or WRTE) called
'Write Enable' or 'Write Protect'. Similar keywords like CP and CPD
cause no confusion.
BTW A possible solution for WRT is looking at the bit pattern: a '0' bit
means 'protected' a '1' bit 'not protected', and use these keywords (and
no 'enable' an 'disable').
After this experience, the announcement of MPLAB X and after working
almost 3 years on device file generation) I'm beginning to think of
quitting. It's time for another challenge for me.
This will be a huge loss for jallib but I understand you point of view.
As Joep suggested, what about waiting for MPLAB X ?
I'm not quitting immediately (maybe not at all, it could just be an
effect of bad whether here!).
And is MPLAB X that ugly ? I mean, did you finally find device files and
how did they look like ?
I don't really know. I'm just worried about the future of the Jallib
device files because I couldn't find files in the format of current .dev
files. We'll see....
Keep us informed with your new challenges anyway ! :)
When I've found one!
Regards, Rob
--
R. Hamerling, Netherlands --- 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.
