MIOS_Bankstick_WritePage in a loop; need to wait?

[This N°9]

because I

1. can't sleep

2. like so much to argue with stryd_one

3. always have to have the last word

Well no, not really a makefile issue at all...

..alter our makefile here, as Raphael..

..broke sdcc for perfectly good makefiles, like..

If it's not a makefile issue at all, why are you using the word makefile so often  ???  :D

It's (was) a makefile issue in this way, that the problem could only be detected by including

the makefile in the problem-finding-process. Agree?

he first break was that the --asm parametr was.... etc

If you beleive it or not, I'am able to read! And guess what, I read all the stuff

that Raphael wrote too! (  :) )

Been here, done this before

Oh, I'am far away from doubting your competence...

if I'm falling on your nerves too much, just hit me.

It's important to realise that SDCC is heavily developed, so bugs can appear and be fixed very regularly

currently I'm very happy with my 2.8.0

do you think the bitshifts-not-working-properly-in-some-context-for-example-in-expression-as-function-parameter-issue

is worth reporting too? I'm not sure if this is a bug. (see begining of this thread)

cheers, this

[stryd_one]

because I

1. can't sleep

2. like so much to argue with stryd_one

3. always have to have the last word

LOL the last two rarely work out well around me....

If it's not a makefile issue at all, why are you using the word makefile so often  ???  :D

In those quotes you took out of context:

First time I said it's NOT our makefile

Second time I said we do NOT need to modify our makefile

Third time I was saying our makefile is GOOD.

Why did I mention it a few times? Because you erroneously stated that this was a makefile related issue. It's not.

It's (was) a makefile issue in this way, that the problem could only be detected by including

the makefile in the problem-finding-process. Agree?

No - any scripted method of calling SDCC would have suffered the same bugs. Makefile, shell script, batch file, hand-written command....whatever. In our particular case, it was the makefile calling SDCC, and that's what helped Raphael find the bug, so that's why he mentioned it.

If you beleive it or not, I'am able to read! And guess what, I read all the stuff

that Raphael wrote too! (  :) )

If you had appeared to have understood it, then I would not have attempted to explain it to you. When you said it was a makefile issue, it was clear that you did not understand. I was trying to help, look at the thanks I get...

Oh, I'am far away from doubting your competence...

I'm just doing the "Yay, I got it right!" thing: Celebration; no accusation :)

if I'm falling on your nerves too much, just hit me.

[me=stryd_one]hits this[/me]

Stop being argumentative, I don't have the time for these discussions, even if you do.

Hell, you have clearly shown that you have a high value to the DIY electronics/open source community, because you are willing to spend your time and effort and apply your abilities to help everyone around you, with things like wiki documents and source code and bug-fixing/reporting... Why waste such valuable time, arguing with me?

currently I'm very happy with my 2.8.0

I expected as much:

if you're using a release build, then you should use the latest one available.

2.8.0 is the latest release build. The *.*.0 builds are usually very good, they are subjected to extensive testing prior to release.

do you think the bitshifts-not-working-properly-in-some-context-for-example-in-expression-as-function-parameter-issue

is worth reporting too? I'm not sure if this is a bug. (see begining of this thread)

Yes, if it is valid syntax and does not work, then it's a bug, and should be reported. Is it still doing that with 2.8.0? It didn't for me....

Yaknow what shits me? You found the time to start a petty argument with me, but didn't even respond to the question I asked you:

gotta wait till tomorrow for the new windoze snapshot. How's it work on *nix?

So, I'll ask again: How's it working? It would be nice to post "Thank Raphael, that works!" on sf.net :)

[This N°9]

So, I'll ask again: How's it working? It would be nice to post "Thank Raphael, that works!" on sf.net

I missed this question. I just tested build #5274 on my kubuntu system, all works well. Added the confirmation to the bug report.

Yes, if it is valid syntax and does not work, then it's a bug, and should be reported. Is it still doing that with 2.8.0? It didn't for me....

I'll run a test on this issue right now.

thanks, this

[This N°9]

I'll run a test on this issue right now.

I confirm that following code works as expected with sdcc build #5274:

void shift_test(unsigned int addr){
	MIOS_LCD_PrintBCD5(addr);//->display shows 1280
	}

void DISPLAY_Init(void) __wparam{
  unsigned int addr = 20;
  MIOS_LCD_Clear();
  MIOS_LCD_CursorSet(0x00);
  shift_test(addr << 6);
  }

void shift_test(unsigned char addr){
	MIOS_LCD_PrintBCD5(addr << 6);//->display shows 1280
	}

void DISPLAY_Init(void) __wparam{
  unsigned char addr = 20;
  MIOS_LCD_Clear();
  MIOS_LCD_CursorSet(0x00);
  shift_test(addr);
  }

void shift_test(unsigned char num){
	unsigned int addr = num << 6;
	MIOS_LCD_PrintBCD5(addr);//->display shows 1280
	}

void DISPLAY_Init(void) __wparam{
  unsigned char num = 20;
  MIOS_LCD_Clear();
  MIOS_LCD_CursorSet(0x00);
  shift_test(num);
  }

[stryd_one]

Sweet as! Thanks for all your help mate!