| ??? 07/12/01 12:40 Read: times |
#13169 - RE: MOVX equivalent |
No the syntax is incorrect but that wasn't the content of the statement. We were discussing the compatibility between Keil and Raisonance compilers, actually any two compilers. In this specific case what works with Keil will work with Raisonance. That was the point of my reply. I didn't interpret the represented line as actual code but rather a description of what the poster wanted to do. If the line was to be reordered so the syntax was correct it would indeed compiler under both compilers.
Bryan Andy Neil wrote: ------------------------------- Would the line<pre>XDATA AT 0x05 name; //declare "name" address</pre>actually compile with the Raisonance compiler? It certainly wouldn't with Keil C51! |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: MOVX equivalent | 01/01/70 00:00 |



