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 get the error "main() auto segment too large" for the given program which should be run on atmet 89c51 how to fix it thanks.........
#include <reg51.h> void Delay(); char serialsend(char []);
void main () { char z; char command1[]={"AT+CGATT=1\r"}; char command2[]={"AT+CSTT= \"ufone.pinternet\"\r" }; char command3[]={"AT+CIICR\r"}; char command4[]={"AT+CIFSR\r"}; char command5[]={"AT+CIPSTART=\"TCP\"\"121.52.147.94\"800\r"}; char command6[]={"AT+CIPSEND\r"}; char command7[]={"GPRS is Activated"}; char command8[]={"26"}; TMOD = 0x20; TH1 = 0xFD; SCON = 0x50; TR1 = 1; serialsend(command1); Delay(); serialsend(command2); Delay(); serialsend(command3); for(z=0; z<3; z++) { Delay(); } serialsend(command4); Delay(); serialsend(command5); for(z=0; z<10; z++) { Delay(); } serialsend(command6); for(z=0; z<5; z++) { Delay(); } serialsend(command7); serialsend(command8);
} char serialsend(char array[]) { int i=0; while(array[i] != '\0') { SBUF = array[i]; while(TI == 0); TI = 0; i++; } }
void Delay() { unsigned char x; for(x=0; x<40; x++) { TMOD=0x10; TL1=0xFE; TH1=0xA5; TR1=1; while (TF1==0); TR1=0; TF1=0; } }
So logic isn't your strong point - we made the same conclusion but expressed differently.
>>>>>>we made the same conclusion but expressed differently.
what??????? you say i must be there and youd win. your friend says i must not be there and youd win.
those two ****** are ****** opposites.
but either way youd win the act stupid event in the olympics!!!!!
sure you and your mate will try to bluff your way out and you and your friend will claim you are all clever and im a fool. your defence just makes you look more like what you are.
hahahahahaha
My note: With you representing us, we, as a group (of let's say the worlds programmers) would win because no one can beat you at "most stupid".
Hans-Bernhard Broeker's note: The only way we (anyone but you) can win, is if we don't need to compete with you. Because no one can beat you at "most stupid".
I must assume that you are a troll. But trolls are normally way more clever.
If you are a troll, then you are a person who intentionally try to fool other people into selecting a very stupid solution.
If you aren't a troll, then god bless your poor parents.
you say i must be there and youd win.
Actually, no, that's not what Per said. What Per said is that the only way we'd be stupider than the competition was if we let you compete for our team --- not against us.
Let me remind of your own advice from earlier in this thread, regarding that there's more to understanding than reading individual words. It might have served you well to heed your own advice just this once. But of course you didn't.
>>>>>Actually, no, that's not what Per said. What Per said is that the only way we'd be stupider than the competition was if we let you compete for our team --- not against us.
are you for real??????
we agree on something. and now go back and see what you said. clue for you,,,,,,, read **** all **** of it,,,,,, carefully,,,,, you know,,,,, more than individual words!!!!!!!!!!
i **** knew **** youd try to bluff out of it.
im bored with trying to teach stones to cook chicken. i will way no more except,,,,,,
priceless.
of course i meant to say
im bored with trying to teach stones to cook chicken. i will say no more except,,,,,,
we agree on something.
No, we don't. And if you honestly thought we did, then your understanding of English, logic or both must be even worse than we already suspected --- which would be quite some achievement.
i will way no more
That's the first good idea you've had in days. If only I could believe you would actually do that.
>>>>>>No, we don't.
you let off again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you cant stop your self can you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so if you say something and i say i agree then you think we dont agree.
well matey,,,,,, your understanding of english, logic or both is definitely different to mine.
funny how you choose to say what you did and did not choose to comment upon and may be even correct the contradiction with what you and your mate wrote,,,, oh,,,,, you cant,,,, because youd have to admit you got something very wrong,,,,,,,,, my dear old english speaking chum.
the very end from me in this thread. enjoy your life of denial.
Since what you agreed to is different from what I said: yes, of course I told you you're wrong. I won't let you, of all people, be the judge of the meaning of my words.
may be even correct the contradiction with what you and your mate wrote
Given there is no such contradiction, there is nothing to correct.
,,,, oh,,,,, you cant,,,, because youd have to admit you got something very wrong
Again, no, nothing to correct.
Actually, you've made quite a show out of proving both Per and me right with every new outburst of yours. Yes, you would win that Olympic competition way ahead of anyone else who participated in this thread --- although there are some other self-proclaimed professional geniuses around here who might give you a run for you money. So the only way "we" could possibly win that medal is if you were on our team, or if you didn't participate.
the very end from me in this thread.
You promised that before. And failed to follow your own advice --- again.
Here's to hoping that you abide by your promise this time.
>>>>>>I won't let you, of all people, be the judge of the meaning of my words.
so what you really say is that what you mean can be different to what you write. is the english for this referred to as some thing like bull excrement????????
nice confession chum.,
so what you really say is that what you mean can be different to what you write.
No. What I'm really saying is that you've demonstrated that you're incapable (or maybe just offensively unwilling) of making the step from what people write to what people mean.
If you look back over this thread, you'll find that basically every single time you gave us your interpretation of somebody else's words, you've been told you got it wrong. It's about time you learned something from that experience.
nice confession
No.
The only confession here is an implicit one by you: you've outed yourself to be a liar. You've promised twice now that you would stop writing here (not counting one pointless repetition), and broken that promise both times, so you've been lying to us. Well, either that or you don't even understand your own writing.
>>>>>>What I'm really saying is that you've demonstrated that you're incapable (or maybe just offensively unwilling) of making the step from what people write to what people mean.
coming from you and the irrational reasoning that is a real compliment. thank you matey.
and finally i did not lie....... i see your messages before...... you like to pressure for arguments??????????? you pressured here and i succumbed. so blame yourself..... oh no,,,, you are incapable.......
coming from you and the irrational reasoning
Your belief that you would recognize irrational reasoning is incorrect. The flaw in your deduction of this belief is the implied assumption that your own way of reasoning were rational. Too bad it's not.
and finally i did not lie..
So you make promises you don't intend to keep, and that's not a lie? Not even when you do it again directly after having been made aware of the first violation? Interesting.
i see your messages before.
Before ... what?
you like to pressure for arguments???????????
How is it pressure when I congratulate you on your decision to shut up, both times?
But I'll admit that my hope you would keep those promises really was not very strong. If you want to take that as me having set you a trap, so be it. Even then it sure wasn't a very subtle trap, by any means, so maybe you should not be quite so proud of having fallen for it.
you pressured here and i succumbed.
So, to feed you back your own words, which maybe you'll understand a bit better: you cant stop your self can you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, like I observed before, you're none too good at following your own advice.
That said, I'm done with you. And unlike you, I mean it.
EOD.
irrefutable points: 1) messages whether code, data or xdata WILL be in code. 2) using "large' makes code larger and slower 3) using "large' requires he prescence of "dptr acessible" RAM
Erik