There's a knowledgebase article that was last reviewed on June 7, 2005 that says the CARM compiler does not support 64-bit unsigned integers. I'm using the ARMCC compiler (from the RealView MDK-ARM toolchain), and the following code
char s[100]; unsigned int x32; unsigned long int x64; sprintf(s,"sizeof(x32)=%u\r\n",sizeof(x32)); printf(s); sprintf(s,"sizeof(x64)=%u\r\n",sizeof(x64)); printf(s);
produces the following output
sizeof(x32)=4 sizeof(x64)=4
This leads me to believe that the ARMCC tools don't support 64-bit math either.
However, if that's so, why doesn't the above code create any errors or warnings when it's compiled?
Is there a way to get 64-bit unsigned integer support in these tools?
Thanks!
I found them by
Input something like "RealView Compiler User Guide pdf"
in the search box of
http://www.arm.com/
I found something like these, they are PDF files.
RealView Compilation Tools Version 3.1 Compiler User Guide
infocenter.arm.com/.../DUI0205H_rvct_compiler_user_guide.pdf
RealView Compilation Tools Version 3.1 Libraries and Floating Point Support Guide
infocenter.arm.com/.../DUI0349A_rvct_libraries_guide.pdf
That was what C51 used to do - and the trouble with that was that it couldn't (or just didn't?) give context-sensitive help from within the IDE.
But now the ARM tools don't even do the context-senstive help anymore - so they might as well use PDF!
(and ARM is one of the few companies that does enable annotations on its PDFs)
Okay... here's a simple suggestion...
Why not make the help files in PDF format? At least that way you'd have full-text-search for the whole doc, and... if you did want to print it out (in part, or in whole)... you could!
You can put all the hyper-linking stuff in PDF's too, if you wanted to.
I feel your pain about so many PDF doc's not having the annotation facility enabled! I miss the little paper clip annotations you could do in the old Windoze help files too.
But... I sure do love this forum. It's bailed me out on multiple occasions.
You can have your soapbox back, now...
The one thing I really miss with electronic manuals is the ability to annotate them.
With hardcopy manuals, you could scribble notes in the margin; eg, adding cross-references that weren't clear from the index.
The original Windows .hlp helpfiles did have an annotation facility - but that seems to have been lost with the new .chm format.
:-(
Acrobat reader does also have the facility to annotate PDF files - but almost nobody enables this facility in their PDF files.
Personally, I wouldn't really value hard-copy manuals.
But the search facility on the "electronic" manuals does seem to be particularly poor for the ARM tools.
And they seem to have lost the "context-sensitivity" that C51 used to have
Maybe I should start another thread...
<soap box mount> For tools that cost several 1000's of dollars, you'd think KEIL could afford to include hard copy of the doc's. I'm sure it's a pain to maintain them, and I'm sure no one likes to publish errata for their doc's, but I wonder... how many folks there are besides me who like to sit in a comfortable chair and read them (as opposed to sitting at their desk even longer trying to do that)? The hard copy doc's are so much easier to read, mark up, dog-ear, etc., as well as thumb through looking for something.
For me, the electronic copy of these manuals are a real disappointment. Time and time again I've been frustrated to find out that the info I was searching for really was in the doc after all; but I just couldn't find it because I didn't know the right keyword to search for, etc. That's where hard copy doc's really shine... you can often find answers that otherwise would remain elusive.
When signing a check for $4500 for tools, another $50 for hard copy doc's would be an easy choice to make. Even if it was optional, and there was an adder fee for them, I'd buy them every time. </soap box dismount>
Agreed.
See my comment in this thread: http://www.keil.com/forum/docs/thread14908.asp
However, I don't think it's anything specifically to do with being online as such: that has great potential to make the documentation far easier to use - with hyperlinking, searching, etc.
Unfortunately, that potential has not been realised.
Thanks guys... switching to a long long fixed my problem!
I googled 64-bit and KEIL but didn't find the page you referenced. I sure miss the good old days when KEIL shipped hard copy manuals with the tools. I still struggle with all these online manuals.
http://www.keil.com/support/man/docs/armcc/armcc_ch04s08s01.htm
Why would it?
The syntax is perfectly valid - even if the implementation isn't what you'd hoped for.
Try long long int
View all questions in Keil forum