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.
I tried to submit this via the email to tech support page but it gave me a 500 error. I have a hard time believing that I am the only person this has happened to, but clearly this is a compiler bug in Keil 8051 version 7.5 compiler. I hope that someone can get this to the correct person at Keil.
4747 1 if(chksum != CWORD[0xF800]) 4748 1 { 4749 2 cstate=1; 4750 2 } 4751 1 if(chksum != CWORD[0xF900]) 4752 1 { 4753 2 cstate=1; 4754 2 } 4755 1 if(chksum != CWORD[0xFA00]) 4756 1 { 4757 2 cstate=1; 4758 2 } 4759 1 if(chksum != CWORD[0xFB00]) 4760 1 { 4761 2 cstate=1; 4762 2 } 4763 1 if(chksum != CWORD[0xFC00]) 4764 1 { 4765 2 cstate=1; 4766 2 } 4767 1 if(chksum != CWORD[0xFd00]) 4768 1 { 4769 2 cstate=1; 4770 2 } 4771 1 4772 1 if(chksum != CWORD[0xFE00]) 4773 1 { 4774 2 cstate=1; 4775 2 } ; SOURCE LINE # 4747 0645 90F000 MOV DPTR,#0F000H <<<<<<<<<<<< should be F800 0648 7800 R MOV R0,#LOW chksum 064A E6 MOV A,@R0 064B FE MOV R6,A 064C 08 INC R0 C51 COMPILER V7.50 MEDBEST040_LCD 10/03/2012 12:30:27 PAGE 300 064D E6 MOV A,@R0 064E FF MOV R7,A 064F 7401 MOV A,#01H 0651 93 MOVC A,@A+DPTR 0652 6F XRL A,R7 0653 7003 JNZ ?C1279 0655 E4 CLR A 0656 93 MOVC A,@A+DPTR 0657 6E XRL A,R6 0658 ?C1279: 0658 6006 JZ ?C0032 ; SOURCE LINE # 4748 ; SOURCE LINE # 4751 0660 90F200 MOV DPTR,#0F200H <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< should be F900 ... ; SOURCE LINE # 4755 0674 90F400 MOV DPTR,#0F400H <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< should be FA00 ... ; SOURCE LINE # 4759 068F 90F600 MOV DPTR,#0F600H <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< should be FB00 ... ; SOURCE LINE # 4763 06AA 90F800 MOV DPTR,#0F800H <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< should be FC00 ... ; SOURCE LINE # 4767 06BE 90FA00 MOV DPTR,#0FA00H <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< should be FD00 ... ; SOURCE LINE # 4772 06D9 90FC00 MOV DPTR,#0FC00H <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< should be FE00 While this works. 15430 01 FLSCL=0x01; // enable flash write/erase 15431 01 PSCTL=0x01; // BUGG NOT 2, which would erase flash, but 1write to flash 15432 01 *write_ptr=CBYTE[0xFA00]; 15433 01 PSCTL = 0x00; // MOVX writes target XRAM 15434 01 FLSCL=0; // disable flash write 000C 75B701 MOV FLSCL,#01H ; SOURCE LINE # 15431 000F 758F01 MOV PSCTL,#01H ; SOURCE LINE # 15432 0012 90FA00 MOV DPTR,#0FA00H 0015 E4 CLR A 0016 93 MOVC A,@A+DPTR 0017 8F82 MOV DPL,R7 0019 8E83 MOV DPH,R6 001B F0 MOVX @DPTR,A ; SOURCE LINE # 15433 001C E4 CLR A 001D F58F MOV PSCTL,A ; SOURCE LINE # 15434 001F F5B7 MOV FLSCL,A
that is the address divided by 2. To access 0xF800 for example, you would use an index of x7C00. I would code it as
if(chksum != CWORD[0xF900/2])
or maybe make a macro (why Keil did not do it like this, I do not inderstand)
MYCSEG CSEG/2 // not the syntax, but the idea
Erik
That would be clearer for sure. I think the reason Keil did not do that is because of the way CWORD is defined. I've been trying to figure out a clean macro for it just for grins. most anything other than they way they defined it would create a lot more code. As it is, they take the index and multiply it by 2 truncate it to 16 bits and then do a MOV DPTR,xxxx
#define CWORD ((unsigned int volatile code *)0)
since that is a text substitution how would you do it as a macro?
#define CWORD ((unsigned int volatile code *)0) /2 would not work.
I guess one could convert it to a function macro with a parameter, something like the code below. Been a long while since I defined a macro with a parameter, so may have the syntax wrong...
#define CWORD_AT(val) ((unsigned int volatile code *) 0)[val/2]
.. I once asked Brian Kernighan of K&RC fame why they did not use the @ for a pointer, so it would verbalize as char at and his comment was essentially, we would have except that the editor we had used the @ as a line deletion command, so there was no way to embed it in the line....
just a little c history...
That would assume that val is even; ie, that all ints are aligned on even addresses - there is no reason for that to be the case on an 8051!
... that all ints are aligned on even addresses ...
Much like Keil's original then?
Yes - and that one isn't mentioned in the doc!
And so?
Keils original? Hmm. I first used this compiler in the late 1980-early 1990's under the name Franklin C. version 2 if I remember right. I don't remember any details, but I do have the installation on a computer so I could find out what the original implementation of this was...
CWORD[0xFA01] will access F402 where FA00 will equal F400, so the macro as it is always yields an integer on a even boundary. An yes, this is not necessarily valid on the 8051.
That is ANOTHER undocumented trap with this macro.... You SHOULD be able to access 0xF001 and 0xF002 with this macro, but the Keil macro will not let you *and* it DOESN'T tell you that in the docs....though that might be inferred from the docs, when it says *2..
You would have to modify the macro to be a *1, rather than an *0 probably, but I haven't tried that.
That is ANOTHER undocumented trap with this macro.... You SHOULD be able to access 0xF001 and 0xF002 with this macro,
"SHOULD", shouted? Why that?
You should be able to do with this macro exactly what its documentation says you should. All that goes beyond that is pie-in-the-sky thinking. As engineers we surely should know better than to engage in such.
Similarly, we should know better than to expect some magically 100% fool-proof documentation. Nothing is ever fool-proof. If anyone ever comes close to that goal, Nature will just make better fools --- you simply can't beat an opponent like that, with billions of years of experience, on its home turf.
You missed the point. You can put an int or a long at any address in the 8051. There is no requirement for an int to live at an address that is even. A macro that allows you to access an integer, should like the char macro, allow you to specify ANY location, even or odd as the base address and index from there in 2 byte increments. The same should hold true for a long.
The two macros should operate identically, just that one returns an integer, and one returns a char. You can after all, says mov dptr,#0xFA01 just as validly as saying 0xFA00.
The point is that macros that access memory, as chars, ints and longs, should allow byte alignment, to be consistent and logical in the 8051 address space.
CBYTE should return a byte at an arbitrary address CWORD should return an integer at an arbitrary address not limited to an even boundary CLONG should return a log at an arbitrary address, not limited to an even boundary, or long aligned boundary
Nothing is ever fool-proof. Is this a quantum-jitter case? Have you tried to design anything at Plank lenth beyond Feynman diagrams?
You missed the point.
Actually no, you did. You insist that things "SHOULD" behave in certain ways just because you would like them to. Neither you nor any outside insitution specified the original requirements for those macros' semantics; Keil (or possibly Franklin) did. So you don't get to decide what they should do.
In the absense of any applicable outside standard, the only requirement that could possibly govern what those macros should do is what their author(s) decided. They documented that decision reasonably well. The implementation correctly matches the documentation, and apparently has been the same for more than a decade. That means there's just no way those macros will change semantics now just to satisfy your wishes. It's way too late for that.
In exchange nothing in this world forces you to use those macros if you don't like them --- if you like macros that do things differently, you can go ahead and write them and use those.
Is this a quantum-jitter case?
Nothing remotely as exotic.
The adage "No such thing as fool-proof --- Nature will just make better fools!" is, at the core of it, an application of Murphy's Law, which in turn is really just common sense applied to the field of engineering:
1) If there's any way something can possibly go wrong, it will go wrong.
2) If there's any way something can be misused by a fool, some fool will do so.
3) If there's any remote possibility a document might be misunderstood, some fool will misunderstand it.
4) If existing fools really aren't up to tasks 2) or 3), Nature will make better ones.
And the big problem here is that Murphy was an optimist.
ROTFLMAO!
O.k. Here are the rules for the silabs 040
A read movx always reads from memory. A movc always reads from flash/info. An instruction fetch always reads from memory (never info page) A write movx changes targets flash/info or memory based on the state of PSCTL[0]
Applying those 4 rules will tell you what happens at any point in your matrix (and some points outside your matrix ;) except for where PSCTL = 0x2 which is truly undefined (PSCTL = 0x3 for erases)
MURPHY LIVES... to paraphrase a line from 'V'..
Additionally, I am going to share one of my debugging hassles early on with the Silabs parts, to make a point about what undefined means:
True story with a silabs part: (all of them actually, but I found it on the 320)
Silabs says a divide by 0 instruction i.e. executing a div with one operand is 0, is undefined. Intel says that a divide by 0 instruction i.e. executing a div with one operand is 0 is also undefined.
HOWEVER:
Intel implemented that to return a 0 Silabs implemented that to return a 0xFF, thus violating the standard legacy setting from Intel.
What happened is that code that ran on an intel part, mysteriously broke on the silabs part, resulting in the end user of our hardware getting a +450 volt shock.
The product we were reverse engineering ran on intel parts, and I basically disassembled the roms, and transcribed them into C. Additionally the port of the intel code in assembly to the silabs part also broke, but I did not do that until much later.
Now granted: it was sloppy code on my part , so no flames here, I should have checked for the divide by 0. When I found the problem, I did that, and it went away, BUT the silabs part *should* have faithfully copied the functionality of the intel part. And by normal math rules, a number divided by 0 is ALWAYS 0, so it worked just fine on the intel code.
Silabs *should* have certainly documented what would happen in the instruction description.
Being it was an 8051 the automatic assumption ..(I know, to assume anything is to make an "ASS out of U and ME")..is that instructions will operate identically the same as the original 8051 standard by Intel.
And by normal math rules, a number divided by 0 is ALWAYS 0, so it worked just fine on the intel code.
NO. It is NEVER zero. Not in a million years.
Presuming one insists on allowing it at all, then by normal math rules a (non-zero) number divided by zero is infinity. Coming from that point of view, it's actually SiLabs that came closer to getting this right, here, by giving you the closest thing to infinity that fits into an 8-bit unsigned result: 255.
They did, by specifying that the behaviour is undefined. Which is essentially the standard technical legalese rendition of your mom yanking your back from the stove and yelling at you: "Do not do that!"