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; } }
i got a grade a++ first time!!!!!!!!!!! in typing exclamation points?
and so what, folowing this (and other) forum for years it has become obvious that some "educational institutions" will graduate people that do not know which end of a resistor is up.
Anyhow, whatever the quality of the institution,the graduates are worthless the day they hit the street. NOTHING but real life experience will 'teach' the individual how to do right with a specific problem.
I have interviewed recent graduates and their lack of "real" knowledge is amazing.
Erik
PS. I recall other discussions where some individual threw education against experience and lost.
Well, I actually think some schools - or some specific teachers - can manage quite well to teach not only facts, but to only help people to learn how to search for information, and how to analyze problems and make own deductions.
Alas, it is way harder to teach people good methodology than it is to teach then specific facts. Even harder, when some students prefer to learn hard facts that they can just memorize than to try to pick up the underlying reasons for these facts and see a need for viewing problems with open eyes.
hey mates.
is there an act stupid event in the olympics.
you guys would win the gold for sure.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>So what, exactly, do you mean by "it" here?
reading is more than interpreting individual words. fool.
>>>>>>What question paper?
read what is said. fool.
>>>>>>Then it is a very stupid exam!
more like you are stupid. fool.
>>>>>>Constant strings like that most certainly should be placed in CODE space - as explained.
funniest of the lot is hat one. even fools cant agree. your mate said
>>>>>>Programming don't have "right answers".
and you say **** most certainly should ****. fool.
youll blunder your way out again but it is obvious what you are.
"you guys would win the gold for sure."
Yes we would. All we need to do is send you to represent us. It would be a walkover victory.
"unniest of the lot is hat one. even fools cant agree. your mate said
>>>>>>Programming don't have "right answers"."
Correct. Programming have better and worse solution. Your solution is the stupid solution, since it requires the availability of XDATA which is a fail in a processor that doesn't have any XDATA. But then, the olympic candidate also claimed that: "its got 4k of perom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
And yes - it is in these 4kB of PEROM (that the Atmel datasheet calls it) that the strings will be stored, whatevery you like. Having them first occupy space in the PEROM and then copied to the 128 bytes if internal RAM have already been found a failure by the OP. Having them copied to nonexisting XDATA, as suggested by you, will just be a different kind of failure.
So yes - I'm pretty sure sending you to represent us in the OS of stupidity would lead to a great victory.
Only if you don't participate.
Behaviour like yours is usually typical of 5-year-olds. Your behaviour is about as far from the "professional" you claimed yourself to be as it is possible.
The only thing you've succeeded at here so far is to present yourself as a complete and utter imbecile. Good luck at digging your way out of that hole again, ever.
hahaha.
the fools keep appearing. and they still cant agree.
so i said
>>>>>>is there an act stupid event in the olympics.
>>>>>>you guys would win the gold for sure.
and two answers
>>>>>>All we need to do is send you to represent us.
and
>>>>>>Only if you don't participate.
priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So logic isn't your strong point - we made the same conclusion but expressed differently.
I think this is the best argument for NOT using 'large' I have seen.
>>>>>>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,,,,,,