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.
On Nov. 11, 2001, I sent in a C51 V6.20 bug report via e-mail to support.us@keil.com. I never received a response, so assumed Keil's policy was to silently introduce the bug fix in a subsequent update. After downloading V6.21, I see that the bug is still present. Now I'm wondering whether my e-mailed bug report was ever acted upon, so I'm going to try the forum as the means to report the bug. I have a section of code with pointer incrementation that compiles and executes correctly when the pointer is defined as a generic pointer or as an xdata pointer, or when the optimization setting is reduced from the default OT(8,SPEED) to OT(7,SPEED). However, when the pointer is defined as a data or idata pointer, the compiler does not emit code to increment the pointer with default optimization. I have provided example code demonstrating the problem. The specific statement is line 50 below.
unsigned char idata u64[8] = { 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF }; unsigned char idata s[21]; void U64ToStr( char idata *s, unsigned char idata *binP, unsigned char n ) { unsigned char bcd; unsigned char idata *bcdP; unsigned char bitMsk = 0x80; unsigned char carry; unsigned char i; /* Zero the target buffer (NUL-terminating the string). */ for (bcdP = s, i = n + 1; i != 0; *bcdP++ = 0, i--) ; /* Convert 64 bits of binary to unpacked BCD. For each bit, starting * with the MSBit, BCD = (BCD * 2) + bit. */ for (i = 64; i != 0; i--) { carry = (*binP & bitMsk) ? 1 : 0; for (bcdP = s + n; bcdP != s; /* Iter in body */) { bcd = *--bcdP * 2; bcd += carry; if (bcd < 10) carry = 0; else { carry = 1; bcd -= 10; } *bcdP = bcd; } if ((bitMsk >>= 1) == 0) { bitMsk = 0x80; binP++; } } /* ASCII'fy BCD. */ for (i = n; i != 0; i--) *bcdP++ += '0'; /* <-- C51 BUG: bcdP doesn't increment for (i)data */ } void main( void ) { for (;;) U64ToStr( s, u64, 6 ); }
Is the lack of response to my Forum-posted bug report on 12/7 due to my Dec. 2001 support expiration? This is certainly unfortunate timing -- trying to debug buggy client hardware, while trying to debug my software, while trying to help with an RTOS port to the Keil C51 toolchain. Now with unresolved compiler questions, it makes for an interesting exercise of "who done it?" when something does not work. I now realize that I've brought the lack of attention to my report upon myself by not anticipating the end date for my support and that I wouldn't be eligible for any bug fixes now (even though I originally reported the bug one month ago on 11/11), but I'd think the original e-mailed report, which was within my support date parameters, would have at least qualified for an acknowledgement of receiving the report. I'll be renewing support again after I dredge up records and locate my Sales contact, and will try reporting the bug again then (sigh). (Hint to Keil Sales: Professional C51 users [not kit level, but those who are in the embedded business] would likely welcome a kindly reminder that their support is expiring.) The lack of any response to both email-posted and Forum-posted bug reports still makes me wonder which is the proper means for reporting bugs. I seem to recall seeing a Keil response to someone's bug report on the Forum. I prefer to use private e-mail first, but has anybody had success e-mailing bug reports? Experiences/recommendations anyone? Frustratedly yours, --Dan Henry