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 don't know why the guys here are such nitpickers"
If you consider this "nitpicking" to be a problem, then you going to struggle with any sort of computer programming.
Computer programming is all about accuracy & precision: computers are stupid machines, and will follow your instructions to the letter and without question. Therefore, if your instructions are anything but a completely accurate and precise representation of your requirement, you will not get what you expected!
I thought Germans should understand about accuracy and precision...
Unfortunately, this forum doesn't support pictures, so we'll have to make do with "ASCII-Art" - but here goes.
Consider the following definitions
typedef unsigned int uint; // In C51, this occupies 2 bytes (16 bits) uint my_uint; // A variable of type uint uint *my_ptr; // A pointer to type uint uint **my_ptr_ptr; // A pointer to a pointer to type uint
Assuming that pointers are also 16 bits, these could result in a memory layout looking something like this:
Address: 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ...+------+------+------+------+------+------+... Memory: | | | | ...+------+------+------+------+------+------+... Name: my_uint my_ptr my_ptr_ptr
You can see that: The address of my_uint is 100; The address of my_ptr is 102; The address of my_ptr_ptr is 104.
Now let's assign some values:
my_uint = 986; // Assign the value 986 to the variable my_ptr = &my_uint; // Assign the address of my_uint to my_ptr my_ptr_ptr = &my_ptr // Assign the address of the pointer to my_ptr_ptr
This would result in the following values being stored in memory:
Address: 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ...+------+------+------+------+------+------+... Memory: | 986 | 100 | 102 | ...+------+------+------+------+------+------+... Name: my_uint my_ptr my_ptr_ptr
Now you can see that: The address of my_uint is still 100, and the value of (ie, the value stored in) my_uint is 986; The address of my_ptr is still 102, and the value of (ie, the value stored in) my_ptr is 100; The address of my_ptr_ptr is still 104, and the value of (ie, the value stored in) my_ptr_ptr 102.
Thus it should now be clear that the address of a pointer has nothing to do with the value of a pointer.
"Assuming that pointers are also 16 bits..."
Note that, in general this assumption is not true for Keil C51.
In Keil C51, an unqualified pointer definition (as shown) would give a Generic Pointer - which occupies three bytes. See: http://www.keil.com/support/man/docs/c51/c51_le_genptrs.htm
Therefore, with Keil C51, the diagram should be more like:
X:100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 ...+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+... | 986 | X:100 | X:102 | ...+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+... my_uint my_ptr my_ptr_ptr
I agree the compiler is 'content' but I still maintain it is 'unsure'. i think we are haggling words rather that function.
You'll have to settle for agreeing with yourself, as nobody else has mentioned the compiler's contentment or lack thereof. As for the compiler being 'unsure', let me assure you that it does not suffer from such problems.
Does a warning not mean "I have done the best I can and am 'content' with that, but it is possible I applied the wrong decision"
No, not at all. A warning in this context means that the compiler has successfully translated some syntactically correct code but has recognised a particular construct as one that is commonly unintended by the programmer.
In other words, it is telling you that you, rather than it, have 'applied the wrong decision'.
As an example: most often a simple non-prototyped functiaon will work just fine, but there is no guarantee that all non-prototyped functions will work.
Why not? Do you understand the purpose of prototypes?
Thus the compiler, while being "content with its decision" (it has done what the documentation states it will) does declare "I am unsure" i.e. issues a warning.
You fail to prototype a function, the compiler issues a warning. What could it possibly be unsure about?
You'll have to settle for agreeing with yourself, as nobody else has mentioned the compiler's contentment or lack thereof In your eagerness to come down on me you state that I introduced 'content' in the discussion, I did not.
As for the rest of your ridicoulous babble, Ill just lket stand for what it is: ridicoulous babble.
Erik
Mr OP,
When I get confused with things like pointers, typecasts and functions, I always add brackets.
But ... take note of the following text from the C infrequently asked questions:
"In the old days, when Microsoft first invented C, the syntax for calling functions involved more parentheses; this was after their market research indicated that most C programmers would be coming from a Lisp environment. Later, when Kernighan took over the language design (right after AT&T bought Microsoft's language technology), he decided to eliminate the parentheses, but the old form is still allowed."
Additional brackets (parentheses) would be of no help at all in this situation, I'm afraid.
Yes. I believe the OP thinks that the "->" operator returns a pointer to the member, when it actually references the member itself ...
"Additional brackets (parentheses) would be of no help at all in this situation, I'm afraid."
Trouble is, looks like nothing helps him anyway!
Not even your nice explicit diagrammed examples!
Not in this case, it isn't.
Warnings really are for those cases where the compiler knows that it has interpreted the source code to the letter of the law, but is aware the users commonly misinterpret the point.
The original post is a classic example: it is perfectly legal to assign an unsigned int value to a pointer, and the result is perfectly well-defined - but there is reason to doubt that it may not actually have been the programmer's intention.
The other classic example is, of course,
if( a = b )
which is perfectly valid syntax, and will give a perfectly well-defined result - but that result may well not be what the programmer had intended...
Perhaps if a native German speaker could translate & explain his German quotation, that might throw some light...
Thus the compiler, while being "content with its decision" (it has done what the documentation states it will) does declare "I am unsure if this is what you want" i.e. issues a warning.
In your eagerness to come down on me you state that I introduced 'content' in the discussion, I did not.
Reality isn't your strong suit, is it?
Ah yes, the 'can't admit I'm wrong but can't defend it' moment.
Ok, you've expanded. I'll paste the expanded sentence back into the paragraph it came from:
As an example: most often a simple non-prototyped functiaon will work just fine, but there is no guarantee that all non-prototyped functions will work. Thus the compiler, while being "content with its decision" (it has done what the documentation states it will) does declare "I am unsure if this is what you want" i.e. issues a warning.
Could you now explain this paragraph properly, as your expansion has not helped it make sense? In particular, please explain:
1) The lack of a guarantee that all non-prototyped functions will work. 2) How the lack of a prototype leaves the compiler 'unsure if this is what you want'.
Mr. smoked sardine: there is an expression "like the devil reads the bible" and it seems you scour my posts with one intention only: to find something that can be misunderstood in a way that makes it wrong.
If, instead of trying to misunderstand me, you tried to understand (if that is within your mental capacity) we would not have these exchanges.