We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
Yesterday I download the latest version of C51 compiler. I installed it, but now I have a strange error during the compilation! The error message is: "C:\UTILS\KEIL\C51\BIN\A51.EXE" ".\MC16R.a51" SET (SMALL) DEBUG EP A51 FATAL ERROR - ERROR: LIMIT EXCEEDED: BALANCED TEXT LENGTH A51 TERMINATED I don't now what does this error mean! does anyone can help me ?
Refer to the following URL for details on this problem: http://www.keil.com/support/docs/1838.htm Jon
Jon, Where can we see a list of exactly what's changed between v6.02/6.03 and v6.10? The v6.10 Release Notes only detail changes from v6.00, and all of those seem to be already present in v6.02/6.03. There seems to be a lot of people reporting problems with v6.10 (and I note that you're up to 6.10e now). Is this version "safe" yet? A.
I request the new version: 6.10e, and I wish to have an answer quickly ! Thanks for the information
Well, in theory you should just follow the 'Product Updates' links (no the left of the message panel) - but that still only lists v6.10a :-(
I know, I complete the register form to receive information from Keil, and now I must wait that Keil check my serial number and send me back a Mail... I wish to have an answer quickly and I wish to keep my new version of Keil.
I receive an answer from Keil, with the A51.EXE file attached to the mail. And now, it seems to compile correctly.
Is there an answer from Keil yet: what are the differences from v6.02 to v6.10x? is there any reason to "upgrade" from v6.03 to v6.10x?
They didn't give any reason to upgrade the v6.02 to the v6.10e. They didn't give the difference between these versions when I receive the 6.10e from Keil.
(1) Is there a workaround? For example, I can assemble (and link) L51_BANK.A51 ok. By 'workaround' I speculate that there is one or more assembly directives that cause the problem. Thanks.
Is there a workaround? Is the problem related to the number of bytes that are allocated by 'db?' Thanks, Doug