Related assembly code

1) You kind of ignored reading the information directly above the message input box. Your "code" is unreadable since you didn't post it, tagged as code.

2) You write (screaming) "CHECK OUT AND TELL ME THIS IS CORRECT OR NOT". It has already been established that it's not correct (since it doesn't work). So why do you ask us to spend time looking at the code when the answer is already known?

3) For some very strange reason, you didn't find it important to tell us exactly what problems you are having with the code? Why not tell what is happening, and what you did expect to happen? You expect us to spend significant amount of time (that we could use to do customer projects and send invoices for) just to look at an unknown problem in source code posted to look like random garbage because you hadn't the time to read the posting instructions? How much time do you spend on the net, giving free help to other people who screams at you?

4) So is this a hobby project? Or maybe a school assignment?

5) Can a pulse generator actually count to zero? What does it then start from, to be able to perform any counting?

6) I see that you did write several paragraphs describing your actual hardware and how everything is connected. Or way a minute - that must have been another thread, because this thread does not contain any such information. You think that helps us help you debug your code? In what way do think that?

7) You think you have a reasonable "density" of comments compared to instructions in your code? Are you sure that you can open this file 1 year from now, and quickly grasp what is happening? Or have you seen any issue that too much comments slows down the assembler in an unacceptable way, leading to too long build times?

1) You kind of ignored reading the information directly above the message input box. Your "code" is unreadable since you didn't post it, tagged as code.

2) You write (screaming) "CHECK OUT AND TELL ME THIS IS CORRECT OR NOT". It has already been established that it's not correct (since it doesn't work). So why do you ask us to spend time looking at the code when the answer is already known?

3) For some very strange reason, you didn't find it important to tell us exactly what problems you are having with the code? Why not tell what is happening, and what you did expect to happen? You expect us to spend significant amount of time (that we could use to do customer projects and send invoices for) just to look at an unknown problem in source code posted to look like random garbage because you hadn't the time to read the posting instructions? How much time do you spend on the net, giving free help to other people who screams at you?

4) So is this a hobby project? Or maybe a school assignment?

5) Can a pulse generator actually count to zero? What does it then start from, to be able to perform any counting?

6) I see that you did write several paragraphs describing your actual hardware and how everything is connected. Or way a minute - that must have been another thread, because this thread does not contain any such information. You think that helps us help you debug your code? In what way do think that?

7) You think you have a reasonable "density" of comments compared to instructions in your code? Are you sure that you can open this file 1 year from now, and quickly grasp what is happening? Or have you seen any issue that too much comments slows down the assembler in an unacceptable way, leading to too long build times?

there is not much hope

right over the entry window it says Place source code source ....

I posted post the parts of your code fully indented and commented .....

you post the whole mess, which, If I can decipher any of the mess you posted is way more than anyone would want to look at for free.

Erik