Need Help

"I do not know why you specifically mention the preprocessor ..."

The discussion about binary constant macros is not part of the original
thread. The original thread about bank selection in assembly language has
stopped with Andy's first post. At the end of Andy's first post, he added
a side comment (using the word "aside") about C's lack of binary constant
notation. A new thread has started on that fork speaks to how some have
addressed C's lack of binary notation. That's the thread you are
in and were in when you introduced the notion of portability
illusion, memory schemes, and I/O schemes. It is the C preprocessor's
text replacement and token merging facilities that allow the binary
constant macros to work, that's why I specifically mention the
preprocessor. It's the part of the toolchain that expands the macros.

The binary contant macros and the C preprocessor that have nothing
to do with memory, I/O, SFRs, microcontrollers, microprocessors, RISC,
CISC, mainframes, etc. You see, it's a text replacement thing. The
preprocessor, when expanding the binary constant macros,
"translates" a number that is represented in binary notation in the
program's source into a normal C integer and produces preprocessed
temporary source code output with the integer translations. There is no
binary notation in the output passed to the C compiler. Any additional
non-portable memory, I/O, SFR stuff for your specific toolchain pass
through and are not affected by the binary text replacement.

"... I should have said "SFR portability" since the PSW, while a SFR is
not I/O"

Again, the assembly language PSW (SFR) bank select thread has stopped for
the time being with Andy's first post. We're not talking about "SFR
portability" (another oxymoron), we're in a forked thread talking about
portable binary constant macros.

"I do not know why you specifically mention the preprocessor ..."

The discussion about binary constant macros is not part of the original
thread. The original thread about bank selection in assembly language has
stopped with Andy's first post. At the end of Andy's first post, he added
a side comment (using the word "aside") about C's lack of binary constant
notation. A new thread has started on that fork speaks to how some have
addressed C's lack of binary notation. That's the thread you are
in and were in when you introduced the notion of portability
illusion, memory schemes, and I/O schemes. It is the C preprocessor's
text replacement and token merging facilities that allow the binary
constant macros to work, that's why I specifically mention the
preprocessor. It's the part of the toolchain that expands the macros.

The binary contant macros and the C preprocessor that have nothing
to do with memory, I/O, SFRs, microcontrollers, microprocessors, RISC,
CISC, mainframes, etc. You see, it's a text replacement thing. The
preprocessor, when expanding the binary constant macros,
"translates" a number that is represented in binary notation in the
program's source into a normal C integer and produces preprocessed
temporary source code output with the integer translations. There is no
binary notation in the output passed to the C compiler. Any additional
non-portable memory, I/O, SFR stuff for your specific toolchain pass
through and are not affected by the binary text replacement.

"... I should have said "SFR portability" since the PSW, while a SFR is
not I/O"

Again, the assembly language PSW (SFR) bank select thread has stopped for
the time being with Andy's first post. We're not talking about "SFR
portability" (another oxymoron), we're in a forked thread talking about
portable binary constant macros.