Hello!
I have uVision that compiles fine with the C51 v7.03 compiler and the related package, but not complete with the 8.06. I used two different Keil installations. All files are in the same folder.
In the 8.06 I get linker errors like "object does not fit in to pdata page" and "0080H". This looks like the compiler was thinking the PDATA was only 128 bytes, but it is set to 256 bytes in the startup.a51. Any clue what's different in the newer Keil package?
Also there is a warning in 8.06 (which does not show in 7.03) "converting non-pointer to pointer" on this
ptr_xdata = sPtr_obj->Adresse;
while the vars are set like this:
uchar uc_set_obj( uchar pdata *ptr_Set) { uchar i; uchar xdata *ptr_xdata; struct stOBJADR code *sPtr_obj; sPtr_obj=&Obj[*ptr_Set]; . . . ptr_xdata = sPtr_obj->Adresse; }
The struct stOBJADR has a member "uint Adresse;"
I can see no wrong use of the pointers. I just want to be sure that the warning does not affect the code to not work correctly.
"I think I don't need to read a bible about pointers"
The way you write about them suggests otherwise.
"as long as this number is 2 bytes long and thus valid"
That is a non-sequitur; ie, the conclusion does not follow from the reason stated.
A 2-byte number might happen to be valid as an XDATA pointer, or it might not - the fact of its size being 2 bytes has absolutely no relation whatsoever to its validity (or otherwise) as a pointer!
"then the pointer has to be set"
There never was any doubt that the pointer would be set - the question is whether it gets set to anything meaningful...
"By assigning a pointer's address I'm not doing a pointer conversion"
By assinging from an int to a pointer you are doing an implicit conversion!
"the pointer only changes the byte it points to"
Eh??! A pointer of itself changes nothing; only when you dereference the pointer does the pointed-to location get accessed.
You still haven't shown the cast that you used and that still gave the warning. If you want to get back to that, then do it...
"That's not the meaning of a computer language. To be more complicated than its inventor."
It isn't complicated; it is really quite simple. You are the one that is complicating it by messing-up the terminology!
Every program "object" - variables and functions - has an address, and that address is the location at which the object itself is stored. Simple. No exceptions.
This is the terminology used by the inventors of the language - Messrs Kernighan & Ritchie.
You are the one who is complicating this by using "address of" when applied to a pointer to mean something different from "address of" when applied to any other object!
Because you have thus modified the meaning of "address of" when applied to a pointer, you then also have to invent another term to use when you do want to refer to the location of the pointer itself!
All this is further complicated by the fact that the non-standard terms you have chosen already have well-established and quite different meanings in the more general context!
Note that all variables are not guaranteed to have a memory address - they could be register-based too. On one hand, that regsiter could be seen as an address, but on the other hand, the compiler could move the variable around if it feels like it. For some processors with few GP registers and slow memory access (at least old 16-bit x86 processors) there was some advantages to switching registers.
You are the one who is complicating this by using "address of" when applied to a pointer to mean something different from "address of" when applied to any other object!> I never wrote this. English is not my native language, but I guess I'm not totally wrong when understanding that a pointer address is not the same as the address of a pointer. The address of a pointer is the pointer itself. So how do you call the address the pointer points to in your terminology? I just call it pointer address. Still because I don't need to care where (at which address) the pointer itself is located.
"The address of a pointer is the pointer itself."
No: The address of the pointer is the location of the pointer itself.
"So how do you call the address the pointer points to in your terminology?"
That is the value of the pointer.
"I just call it pointer address"
Don't call it that - it's just confusing!
"Still because I don't need to care where (at which address) the pointer itself is located"
You would care if you needed a pointer to the pointer...
The address of the pointer (or variable) is the same as the pointer's (or variable's) address, i.e. the location where the pointer (or variable) is stored.
The value of the pointer is an address - the address that the pointer points to.
"The address of a pointer is the pointer itself." should be rewritten as: "The address of a pointer is the location of the pointer itself".
The address the pointer points to? That's the value of the pointer. Just as the value of variable my_int below is 5.
int my_int = 5;
Variables stores values. It doesn't matter what data type the variable has (pointer, pointer, struct, ...), it still stores one or more values.
As soon as you write more complex programs, you regularly do have to care about the address of the pointer, i.e. where the pointer is stored. Or, more specifically, your application will need the address of your pointer, so that it will be able to indirectly (through a pointer) modify the address stored in the pointer (the pointer's value).
Look at strtol(const char* str,char **endptr,int base) which takes a pointer to a pointer as second parameter.
char input_string[] = "12345broken chars"; char *end; long val; val = strtol(input_string,&end,10); if (*end != '\0') printf("Invalid number string\n"); else printf("The value was %ld\n",val);
Now the pointer end (not what it points to) will be modified to point at the first non-valid character in the input string.
This is a simple case where you use the address of a pointer to change the pointer instead of changing what it points to. There are many more - many of them way more complex - that are commonly used in standard C/C++ programs. Some RTOS may have half their API centering around pointers to pointers... Array manipulation functions are a different area where multiple levels of indirection is often needed.
Yes, you did: in your post of 5-Feb-2008 08:25, you wrote,
"A pointer's address for me is the address it points to."
For any other variable, "the variable's address" means the address of the variable - but you said you're using "the pointer's address" to mean the value of the pointer.
I did not!
I can only repeat, that for me a pointer's address is NOT the same as the address of a pointer. Address is defined as a target, at least in my language. So a pointer points to a target (address) and this is the pointer's address (or target). The address of the pointer, where it is located in RAM, should be pronounced as the location of the pointer.
A pointer's value for me is the value it points to. Like the address (number) in the register DPTR is the address it points to. Anything else does not make sense, since no one cares for the pointer itself, except for its data type, even if it is a pointer to a pointer.
You all may call me unteachable, but this is my way of understanding this confusing topic. Confusing because when you hear the first time about pointers (some years ago in my case), people like to confuse with the fact that a pointer points to a certain address/value, but also has an address/value, as you call it. Whereas I don't see any sense in concerning the address of the pointer itself. It just confuses...
"I did not!"
You most certainly did. The quote came from your post. It's right up there in your post that Andy referenced, recorded for history and for all to read.
"A pointer's value for me is the value it points to."
A pointer's value is an address. A dereferenced pointer yields the value addressed by the pointer.
"a pointer's address is NOT the same as the address of a pointer."
OK, maybe that's just a problem with English not being your first language - but, in English, the phrase "a pointer's address" has exactly the same meaning as the phrase "the address of a pointer"
That's nothing to do with 'C' or programming - that's the way English works.
Just as "a dog's breakfast" has the same meaning as "the breakfast of a dog"
Or "a variable's address" has the same meaning as "the address of a variable"
Or "a variable's value" has the same meaning as "the value of a variable"
Or "a pointer's value" has the same meaning as "the value of a pointer"
In general, "a thing's property" has the same meaning as "the property of a thing"
"Address is defined as a target, at least in my language"
Again, not in English.
In English, an "address" identifies a location - whether it's a postal address, that identifies the location of a house, or a memory address, that identifies the location of a particular cell within the memory array.
"So a pointer points to a target (address)"
Correct
"and this is the pointer's address (or target)."
Wrong! That doesn't even make sense by your own reasoning!
If the pointer points to any address, then that address cannot be the pointer's own address - unless the pointer is pointing to itself!
"The address of the pointer, where it is located in RAM, should be pronounced as the location of the pointer."
Correct - and "the location of the pointer" is synonymous with "the address of the pointer" which is also synonymous with "the pointer's address" which is also synonymous with "the pointer's location"
"Whereas I don't see any sense in concerning the address of the pointer itself."
Just because you don't see a need for it doesn't mean that there is no need for it!
It is also no excuse for allowing your terminology to become misleading.
You have already been given several examples of where there is a need to be concerned with it
You all may call me unteachable, but this is my way of understanding this confusing topic.
You got that backwards. It's exactly your way of thinking that renders this topic so confusing for you. It's getting in the way of your understanding it.
Your private terminology is based on firmly held, yet incorrect beliefs. Mismatch of thought with reality is the consequence. That's pretty much the definition of "confusion".
The address of an ordinary variable is generally every bit as important as its value. The same holds for pointer variables: their address is as important as their value. Pretending otherwise will bite you in the lower back soon enough.
"You all may call me unteachable"
OK then: you are unteachable; that is, in English, at least.
Maybe it'd be better if you could find someone to explain this to you in your own language?
Just think of a pointer to a pointer!
char variable; char *pointer_to_variable; char **pointer_to_pointer_to_variable;
"It just confuses"
Only because you still don't understand it, and still insist on using confusing terminology!
Or "a pointer's value" has the same meaning as "the value of a pointer
Afaik, a pointer points to a value, but it doesn't have one.
You sure? A data packet in the internet is sent to an address, the IP. Network hardware has a MAC address, where data is addressed to. If you send a letter, you send it to an address. Perhaps I should have written destination instead of target. It's sometimes not easy to distinguish between multiple words in English (target, aim, goal, destination) that have only one meaning in German (Ziel).
But still, if a pointer points to a pointer, I don't need to care about both pointer locations. This is C, so I don't care about memory addresses. This is a matter of opinion, but I don't find it very elegant to put a pointer to a pointer...
I'm also not the super programmer like you folks seem to be. I rather do many things in my life than just learning a computer language down to its deepest meaning. What counts is that it has to work. And it does! Even without non-sense warnings of a picky compiler.
You don't seem to get it. I don't understand it, because it's confusing. I can understand anything that is logical for me. Electronics, current, atoms, physics, biology down to molecules, bits and bytes. I can explain you, down to the level of an electron, how a computer works, but this is not logical to me. My terminology helps me to understand it. It's enough to know what a pointer is and does, no need to understand it.
You plainly don't understand it, and your bad terminology may well be a contributing factor to that, if not just a symptom of it.