Unable to execute MPASMX

[ShaneMichael]

I updated to PBP 3.1.2.4 and MicroCode Studio Plus 5.0.0.5 and now I have a compile error "Unable to execute MPASMX" I installed the latest MPLAB X 5.4, but I'm not able to find the MPASM.exe, MPASMWin.exe or MPASMX.exe.

I tried the MPASM-MPLAB setup tool using defaults and pointed to where the directories where I thought the assembler would be. The the tool says it completed, but I continue to get the same error in in MicroCode Studio Plus.

I checked my work computer and it has the MPASMX.exe in the microchip\mplabx\v5.3 folder, the mplabx\v5.4 folder doesn't seem to include the MPASMX.exe file on my home computer?

I went to the microchip archives and installed MPLABX 5.3. Then ran the MPASM-MPLAB setup tool, pointed it at the v5.3 folder and now Microcode Studio Plus compiles without issue.

I'm wondering if this is the correct solution, or if there is something I'm overlooking with MPLAB V5.4? I also thought this may save the next person some time in troubleshooting.
Thanks
Shane

[Acetronics2]

Hi, Shane

You're right ... the "bug " is confirmed with MPLABX 5.40 ... ( and as always ... no news from Charles@ Melabs ... )

PBP works fine with previous MPLABX 5.35 ...

Alain

[tumbleweed]

Microchip have dropped MPASM/MPASMX as of MPLABX 5.40. It's no longer included.
MPLABX is 64-bit only now, and MPASM is/was a 32-bit program.

They have a new 8-bit assembler, pic-as.exe and it's not compatible with MPASM. You'll have to stick with MPLABX 5.35.

[HenrikOlsson]

Yikes! From the 5.40 relese notes:

· MPLAB X IDE now a 64-bit application only. This version cannot be run on 32-bit operating systems; 64-bit operating systems are required.
· MPASM no longer included in install. MPASM toolchain is 32-bit and is no longer supported. Therefore, you will see a message on opening the IDE that there is no toolchain installed.

This does not sound too promising for the future of our beloved compiler...or does it? Perhaps this will allow (or even push) MeLabs to make the needed changes (though, as much I hate to say it, I personally doubt it).

tumbleweed says that the new assembler isn't compatible with MPASM, I'd like some more details on that, like have they completely changed it so it will no longer be able to assemble a target executable from the .lst file PBP produces?

[Ioannis]

If the .lst file is different now (in the MPLABX IDE environment) for sure there would be no compatibility...

But if the change in the name is the problem, maybe the pic-as.exe can be renamed and the MCS can find it and use it.

I do not have time to download and test this right now. If anyone?

Ioannis

[Ioannis]

Henrik, if the compiler does not support the new PIC's there is no point in updating to new MPLABX assembler, right?

Ioannis

[Acetronics2]

BTW ...

I see MCS allows to select using MPASMX assembler or not ... ( View / Compile and program options )

could be useful here ... if not using latests chips ( ? )

I still use MPLAB 8.92 ( for its SIM ...) / MCS or MPLABX ( ICD4 is a jewel ...)...

Alain

[tumbleweed]

But if the change in the name is the problem, maybe the pic-as.exe can be renamed and the MCS can find it and use it

Unfortunately there's more to it than just a name change.

Assembly code written for MPASM will not work with pic-as (which is part of the XC8 V2.20 package), and has to be re-written to be compatible.
The upshot to this is any new chips added after MPLABX 5.35 (mpasmx 5.87) will not work with PBP.

if the compiler does not support the new PIC's there is no point in updating to new MPLABX assembler, right?

Correct

Some documents about pic-as:
MPASM to MPLAB XC8 PIC Assembler Migration Guide https://www.microchip.com/mymicrochi...name=en1001804
MPLAB XC8 PIC Assembler Users Guide https://www.microchip.com/mymicrochi...name=en1001821
MPLAB XC8 PIC Assembler Users Guide for Embedded Engineers https://www.microchip.com/mymicrochi...name=en1002091

[HenrikOlsson]

Henrik, if the compiler does not support the new PIC's there is no point in updating to new MPLABX assembler, right?

Of course not. But now, just as tumbleweed says, new devices will not be supported by MPASM so unless MeLabs brings their A-game and somehow creates support for this new assembler we will forever be stuck at whatever 5.35 supports. I know, I know, we're quite aways from even 5.35 as far as device support goes but now it looks even less likely that we'll get any further.

They most likely don't do it intentionally but Microchip sure is screwing it up for MeLabs with their ever changing stuff. If you want debugging you have to use this particular version, if you want code folding you have to use that particular version, if you want to use that particular device you have to use a version which is none of the previous two and now they kills MPASM alltogether and makes the new one non compatible. I wonder if we'll hear anything from MeLabs on this...

[Ioannis]

After Mikes post on Melabs about Melabs I doubt...

Too pity!

Ioannis

[tumbleweed]

They most likely don't do it intentionally but Microchip sure is screwing it up...

I don't think they give a ****.

All of this was brought to their attention a while back and the response was basically "sucks to be you".
It was "too hard" to convert mpasmx to 64-bit, and they "have to have all 64-bit tools" because MPLABX
is cross platform now and one of the popular fruit vendors dropped support for 32-bit apps in their latest OS update.

It seems that the engineer(s) who worked on mpasm have left (or been fired), and the XC8 team is left holding the bag.
They just substituted the assembler used by XC8 (which was part of the HITECH stuff mchip got when they bought them).

Progress, boys and girls, progress! Who wants to be using some old 32-bit app? This is 2020... get with the program!

[mpgmike]

As it stands, Charles has told me that there will be updates to PBP3, but nothing past using MPLABX v5.35 because of the obvious MPASM death. However, if you download MPLABX v5.35 and create a new project, the first question is pick a PIC. In the drop-down you'll see scads of PICs that aren't yet covered by PBP3. There are new chips you can't even buy yet, like the PIC18FxxQ83 & Q84. I don't see PBP lying in its death bed with one barely slit eye just yet. There's still lots of life left in it.

[Ioannis]

Comforting what Mike post but you can't disagree the PBP evolution seems to be on Auto-Pilot...

I 'm still using the compiler and probably will be using it as long as the chips I select are supported.

But one point in time I'll have to consider seriously the next step.

Ioannis

[HenrikOlsson]

Hands up those who'll throw $100 Charles way to support him.
If we'd setup some sort of crowdfunding compain, how much do you guys think we'd raise? My guess - enough to cover a couple of hours worth of work….Never the less, if it'll help Charles/MeLabs I'd certainly pitch in.

It sure looks like learning C is, by far, THE best bet if you're in this for the long run and want to keep up with new offerings. Until the day PBP goes subscription I'll keep hoping and be willing to support MeLabs by paying reasonable (which certainly has been the case this far) upgrade charges.

I did look at Swordfish and it had zero updates for YEARS (according to the version history), then all of a sudden it sprung to life again. I wonder if they rely on MPASM and how they'll this, same with MikroE - I don't know how their stuff "works" but something tells me they're not relying on MPASM and they certainly have more Resources available to stay compatible with Microschip.

[Dave]

For the last 20 or so years I have enjoyed using PBP for work and at home for my own projects. I would hate to see it die a slow death. So far it has been very useful with some of the newer PIC's I have been using. I am looking forward to seeing a new release of the product some day.......

[Ioannis]

Henrik, no one denied the paid new update to PBP. The problem is that Melabs is Charles and Charles is working somewhere, not at Melabs as his day job.

So this update think will take more time to happen...

Ioannis

[richard]

It sure looks like learning C is, by far, THE best bet if you're in this for the long run and want to keep up with new offerings.

you don't want to leave it too late. i would not be surprised to see things heading towards c++ eventually, thats a far bigger hurdle to jump than basic to C. the way microchip are leading us with the mcc for the newer more complex chips makes the hardware more abstracted from the coder, more like "code objects" than modules. it suits the object orientation of c++. the recent change from c90 to c99 has made a lot of my "methods" obsolete, you get something sorted out working fine then whoops the rug is pulled out from under your feet. the world just won't sit still, if you get too far out of step its not easy to catch up

Until the day PBP goes subscription I'll keep hoping and be willing to support MeLabs by paying reasonable (which certainly has been the case this far) upgrade charges.

it depends on your definition of an upgrade , just barely marginal support for a few extra chips does nothing for me.
i want to see proper support for the new hardware modules, pps what about arrays in linear memory space
80 byte max array for new pic16f is pathetic. no hw spi or i2c why ?

[Ioannis]

I did look at Swordfish and it had zero updates for YEARS (according to the version history), then all of a sudden it sprung to life again. I wonder if they rely on MPASM and how they'll this, same with MikroE - I don't know how their stuff "works" but something tells me they're not relying on MPASM and they certainly have more Resources available to stay compatible with Microschip.

It seems that they rely on MPLBX: https://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/wiki/pm....SystemConvert but is a good option now they support it again.

As for the MikroE, previous versions had a lot of bugs. Also produces more code than PBP. So, for me it is a no at this moment.

Ioannis

[tumbleweed]

(swordfish) I wonder if they rely on MPASM

Yes they do, but since it's only for the PIC18F series it's a little easier for them.

I understand they'll be extending the existing MPASM to deal with new chips for a while, at least until mchip change something else
in the 18F that makes it not work anymore.

[Acetronics2]

I really do think the IDE is going to be not so far from the Arduino one ...

in the " ever better " versions list ... we have forgotten the last MPLABX release that showed a ( useful ) spelling corrector ... the 2.35 !!! ( Charles also had talked about doing " something " about ... centuries ago ! )

Thanks to god, I have home a nice stock of our " old " favourites chips ...

Alain