Breaking through pages in PIC16 Series

Hello

I think this is the right place to ask this question. I need good answer, please.

This is about breaking through pages in the flash program memory regarding PIC16 series, if a routine is larger than 2048 instructions, and by coincidence, it did not fit with in the same page, I mean this routine does not fit within one page any way, what will the PICBasic Pro compiler do ??

Is it going to issue an error, ignore it and make you think that it will work, or this issue is already solved in PICBasic Pro ??


I AM REALLY CONFUSED GUYS !!!!!

PBP will handle everything for you. The worst thing you could have it's a warning about Cross boundary blah blah. It's just a warning. Nothing else than.

Don't worry, PBP do the job for you :)

Hello

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mister_e

PBP will handle everything for you. The worst thing you could have it's a warning about Cross boundary blah blah. It's just a warning. Nothing else than.

Don't worry, PBP do the job for you :)

---

Have you stuck with such a situation, and if so, you got a warning regarding a page boundary, what should I do, does PBPro solve this problem, so I don't have to modify the code.

If PBPro doesn't, then, how can I solve this.

Thanks

As most of my current design use more than 16K now, i get this warning often... as i said it's only a warning returned by MPASM and the program works really good BTW.

look the following thread
http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=555

Hello

Thanks for the answer. You have reliefed my brain indeed.

By the way, what is an embedded assembler

Assembler is the native programming method for the PICs as provided by Microchip within the MPLAB environment. PICBasic enables you to incorporate (embed) Assember instructions in-line within your PICBasic code if you so wish to perform fuctions that otherwise PICBasic is not able to provide.

Hello Melanie

I don't think I have ever required to put any assembly line with my basic code ;)

So, what about extended clock support ?

This depends on your Version of PICBasic... look for the DEFINE OSC Statement in your manual for the full list, along with the NEW.TXT file with your Compiler. Support is now offered to 48MHz, but not every value is or possible clock speed is catered for. In a lot of instances you can get away with something close.

Hello Melanie

You really pushed the limits now... And it ain't be acceptable any more, sorry for that.

I don't know where is the beauty in defining 10MHz crystal, while using 13.3MHz crystal, and to wait one second, I have to write Pause 1330.

I have never seen you answering a single request in the wish-list with ok we are working on this one, or ok we will consider that one, all your answers are spinning around this sentence "In a lot of instances you can get away with something close"... Does that makes you feel better when you say it many times...

Ok, PICBasic Pro is the top, and its worth every $$ I paid for the sake of its stability and I am not quitting PICBasic Pro, ever never, but bear in mind, its not really appreciated by the users to leave them in need when they ask for some thing in the wish list like FP, GLCD, and many more, as long as melabs can make it happen for them, but melabs now is in another world, I presume. As I have seen some answers in the wish-list like "This is not the right place for you my friend, you may want to consider using another compiler from another competing company" Is that it, How shame.

Please, don't mention overhead in the code, most users now are heading toward PIC18F series, so, this is not an excuse either. Any way, most excuses are not really convincing, even for a begginer, and after a while, will not be acceptable either.

Please, don't get me wrong, and don't get angry, as I am not saying that I am quitting PICBasic Pro, or I hate it, but its simply reached to the max limits, I presume. And I love you all guys using PICBasic Pro :)

Regards

> I have never seen you answering a single request in the wish-list with ok we are working on this one, or ok we will consider that one

That's because I don't work for MeLabs. I'm just like you (but with a short skirt and legs that can stop traffic at 200 yards).

I have been known to turf out three new products in a WEEK, from concept to production, and if PAUSE 1330 solves the problem, then it's done, dusted, the money's rolling in and I'm on the next job.

Hey Melanie

Take it easy, I am still young for legs and skirts, not that young ;) I didn't know you don't work for melabs, and you got legs that stops traffic at 200 yards either ( Seems we got pretty PIC women here ) :) thats brilliant.

Any way, No offence at all, the same also happens here in our streets ;)

I think that one of the main reason for those oscillator speed is they're not as popular as the other AND, of course, it's bot as this easy to implement timing with...
Some maths
4MHZ 1 uSec cycle
8MHZ 0.5 uSec cycle
10MHZ 0.4 uSec
12MHZ 0.33333333 uSec
20MHZ 0.2 uSec

SO when you comes up with a 11.059MHZ OSC you got
11.059MHZ
3,6169635590921421466678723211864e-7 cycles... How on earth can you get accurate PAUSE 1000 without any trick??? Yeah PBP could implement them but as they're not the main one we use... so i guess it just don't worth NOT ONLY FOR MELABS... in almost compiler i use.

Hello

I did not think about it that way, but any way, you mean there is a trick with it, and ain't ccurate too, good point of view, thanks alot :)

Then I better stick with those crystals that yield non-fractional results ;)

Thanks