| ??? 11/17/08 11:25 Read: times Msg Score: +1 +1 Good Answer/Helpful |
#160081 - variant syntax of SDCC keywords and ANSI-C compatibility Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Neil said:
So, has the syntax changed between versions?
Or are you using a "variant" syntax? Or what? There are several keywords in SDCC, which are "extensions" to C. The compiler in its default, "tolerant" state, accepts both the "plain" and "double-underscore-prefixed" version; however, if you enforce ANSI-C compatibility (C89 or C99) using appropriate command-line switches, only the other one is accepted. This is why it's the "encouraged" form, used throughout the manual and in the libraries. This IS explained in the manual (so now I might say, you should've read the WHOLE manual first :-) ): "SDCC manual in ANSI-C compliance chapter" said:
Certain words that are valid identifiers in the standard may be reserved words in SDCC unless the --std-c89 or --std-c99 command line options are used. These may include (depending on the selected processor): 'at', 'banked', 'bit', 'code', 'critical', 'data', 'eeprom', 'far', 'flash', 'idata', 'interrupt', 'near', 'nonbanked', 'pdata', 'reentrant', 'sbit', 'sfr', 'shadowregs', 'sram', 'using', 'wparam', 'xdata', '_overlay', '_asm', '_endasm', and '_naked'. Compliant equivalents of these keywords are always available in a form that begin with two underscores, f.e. '__data' instead of 'data'. Of course, the manual is far from being perfect, and due to its evolving nature, there might be several discrepancies in the text, some of them serious, some just funny. See for example, http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccm...de125.html, the text above table says "there are four reserved keywords", and then the table lists five... ;-) JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SDCC declaring SFR bits | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Manual | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SDCC declaring SFR bits | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Header files? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Header files? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The manual is not enough! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This is one way | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That's not what the manual says | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Those SFR definitions are working | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Need someone who knows SDCC: Maarten Brock? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| variant syntax of SDCC keywords and ANSI-C compatibility | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C standard compliance | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Common for all compilers | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| coders should think twice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The preprocessor is often a good friend | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Suggestion | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
thanks, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 |