| ??? 05/03/06 21:32 Read: times |
#115504 - sfr declarations NOT compatible Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Keil uses a very weird syntax for defining the address of sfr's. You cannot define and initialize in one statement for instance. SDCC uses the at/__at keyword for this.
Also sfr16 is handled differently. SDCC does not require the bytes to be adjacent in memory. Most differences you will find if you look at the special keywords. Another great difference is calling convention. Parameters are passed very differently so you cannot just use a precompiled (commercial) Keil library. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SDCC and Keil C compatibility | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| major differences | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ansi incompatabilities | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC vs keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| other way round :) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC vs Keil Part 2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| actualy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sfr declarations NOT compatible | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| too bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Perhaps it is? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| indeed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| it almost is | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the root of many evils | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another important difference! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| fast & efficient code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Problem with porting code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bla bla | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| semicolon missing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| set TI=1 in your init_uart() | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you looked at this? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
General Tip: Disable all extensions | 01/01/70 00:00 |