Paul v0.1 build 2 download seemed to be build 1. did IU mess up or is the wrong file posted?
|
Paul v0.1 build 2 download seemed to be build 1. did IU mess up or is the wrong file posted?
-Bert
The glass is not half full or half empty, Its twice as big as needed for the job!
http://foamcasualty.com/ - Warbird R/C scratch building with foam!
|
Another question. Do we need the dependency on PBP files? I ask this because I don't know how many machines I am allowed to install PBP on (I assume 1). I use at least 2 daily, 1 at work and 1 at home. So I can't run your wizard at work cuz PBP is installed at home.
Now you may be asking yourself, Why do you need to create a header without PBP installed? Heres my reason, I often find time to work on stuff at work in small bits. So I may start a new project at work and tote it back and forth on a USB drive. Testing will be done at home, but I can still work on chunks of code at work. Make sense?
-Bert
The glass is not half full or half empty, Its twice as big as needed for the job!
http://foamcasualty.com/ - Warbird R/C scratch building with foam!
|
Not at the moment. I'd like to do it all using just the standard MPASM inc files.Originally Posted by cncmachineguy
I assume 2. 8^) I never use them at the same time. I did explicitly purchase a 2nd copy of MCS as a tacit "thank you" for making a few special/oddball bootloader files for me.I ask this because I don't know how many machines I am allowed to install PBP on (I assume 1).
FWIW I purchased the Proton compiler, 100% legitimately, a few years ago (I was lusting after the floating point). Almost immediately afterwards they instituted the dongle protection scheme. Other issues aside, I received a message that if I didn't upgrade (for more money) to the dongle system I would be listed as a "pirate" on their board. I've never used Proton again, embraced PBP with all my heart (sorry I strayed!), and learned the joy that is integer math.
Oh dear, I'm getting off on a tangent... MELabs license... Okay...
From the MELabs web site:
The way I understand this is that as long as *I* am the one using it on one computer at a time (which is all I do) I am in compliance. It's similar to uninstalling the software from my work computer at the end of the day and installing it at home in the evening. I really don't think this is even a gray area, but I am not a lawyer (thank goodness!). If someone official (e.g. from MELabs) told me my interpretation was wrong I would reconsider.In consideration of Licensee's payment of the license fee, which is part of the price Licensee paid for this product, and Licensee's agreement to abide by the terms and conditions on this page, the Company grants Licensee a nonexclusive right to use and display the copy of the enclosed software on a single computer at a single location.
Yay tangents!
Best Regards,
Paul
|
I will assume as you have regarding the use on 2 machines by just 1 person. ACAD used to be this way, 10 years ago. In fact they spelled it out as "Install on as many machines as you want, but ONLY 1 seat may be used at a time"
Yea PBP!!! BAD Proton
-Bert
The glass is not half full or half empty, Its twice as big as needed for the job!
http://foamcasualty.com/ - Warbird R/C scratch building with foam!
|
I messed up. The correct file is below, and I'll try to institute better file control...
Best Regards,
Paul
|
No, we are working from Microchip files.Do we need the dependency on PBP files
Dave
Always wear safety glasses while programming.
|
No worries. Can I lie to the wizard and just create a PBP dir or is it also looking for any file? If it is, can i lie to it about the file and just create a blank file named happywizard.whatever?
-Bert
The glass is not half full or half empty, Its twice as big as needed for the job!
http://foamcasualty.com/ - Warbird R/C scratch building with foam!
|
I think so. You don't even need to point to a file, just a folder that exists. I just tried it pointing to "c:\" and it worked fine.
Best Regards,
Paul
|
bug report:
1. dir browser works great, doesn't cry about PBP dir unless you go through the settings.
2. If you change chips, settings from last chip persist.
3. tris and port are still output as port and tris. to be clear, when i change the tris setting, port is changed in the output.
4. This is the biggie, cant find the option to include what I forgot!
hopes:
can the tris and port output be combined when less then 8 pins are avail? ie:trisa=%xx00110011 instead of the current trisa.0= trisa.1= etc.
-Bert
The glass is not half full or half empty, Its twice as big as needed for the job!
http://foamcasualty.com/ - Warbird R/C scratch building with foam!
|
Glad something worked right!
Well, they need to be set to something... What would you recommend?2. If you change chips, settings from last chip persist.
You didn't like that part? Ok, I've found and fixed that bug.3. tris and port are still output as port and tris. to be clear, when i change the tris setting, port is changed in the output.
Ah, well...I don't want to push the joke too far...4. This is the biggie, cant find the option to include what I forgot!
I've tried messing with that, and the question I have is what value should your "x" be set? For most chips it's not a big deal. The 16F877 has only the lowest 3 bits on PORTE, so the application can write "TRISE = %111" to set them all to inputs. The 16F827, on the other hand, appears to be missing PORTA.5. I don't think it would make sense to write "PORTA = %11x11111". My understanding is in that case, the PIC really doesn't care what you set it to--it doesn't exist so it will just be ignored. But I still have to set it to something--1 or 0? Either way it is going to confuse someone sooner or later...can the tris and port output be combined when less then 8 pins are avail? ie:trisa=%xx00110011 instead of the current trisa.0= trisa.1= etc.
Best Regards,
Paul
|
My thoughts are to set them to nothing like they are when You first open. Maybe just clear the enable check box. I agree the high/low needs to be set to one or the other. Maybe by default all tris are input and all ports are low?Well, they need to be set to something... What would you recommend?
You didn't like that part? Ok, I've found and fixed that bug.
Just shows you have more sense then me.Ah, well...I don't want to push the joke too far...
To me using 0 and keeping the value looking "right" is easier to read. but thats just me. it would make great sense to be able to write 11x11111, but I'm sure the compilers will scream!I've tried messing with that, and the question I have is what value should your "x" be set? For most chips it's not a big deal. The 16F877 has only the lowest 3 bits on PORTE, so the application can write "TRISE = %111" to set them all to inputs. The 16F827, on the other hand, appears to be missing PORTA.5. I don't think it would make sense to write "PORTA = %11x11111". My understanding is in that case, the PIC really doesn't care what you set it to--it doesn't exist so it will just be ignored. But I still have to set it to something--1 or 0? Either way it is going to confuse someone sooner or later...
on an aside, don't know if I've even said thank you, so if not THANK YOU!!!!!!!
-Bert
The glass is not half full or half empty, Its twice as big as needed for the job!
http://foamcasualty.com/ - Warbird R/C scratch building with foam!
|
Very Nice. Great job Slazonger. Thanks for sharing that with us! What programming language did you use?
Thanks again,
Walter
http://www.scalerobotics.com
Members who have read this thread : 0You do not have permission to view the list of names.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks