Keil C does not support this line:
typedef const UINT32 volatile xdata *PCVX32;
typedef const volatile UINT32 xdata *PCVX32;
Staffan: let me repeat from a previous post "Again I did not post as to the issue being mentioned, which it should, but to it being dragged out. I woukd expect Keil to check if this existed in a wider context and either document "the sequence MUST be" or allow random sequencing of keywords.". thus, please stop dragging it out. Erik
"Staffan" Try again. "let me repeat from a previous post "Again I did not post as to the issue being mentioned, which it should, but to it being dragged out." Perhaps you should restrict your posts to technical contributions? "I woukd expect Keil to check if this existed in a wider context and either document "the sequence MUST be" or allow random sequencing of keywords."." And I have explained to you why they cannot, and would not want, to do that. "thus, please stop dragging it out" I have no desire to drag anything out. Your contribution to this thread contained errors, I corrected them. Deal with it.
Please state fully, you shouls post Your contribution to this thread in my ponion contained errors. That we do not agree does not make my opinion erroneous. Erik
"That we do not agree does not make my opinion erroneous." No. That job is done by the 'C' standard.
oh you just can not stop. I NEVER said this was "correct" but I said "harping on it as a disaster is ridiculous". I have no doubt that Keil will eventually fix it, but to state "I can not use the compiler because I need to reverse typedef const UINT32 volatile xdata *PCVX32; to be typedef const volatile UINT32 xdata *PCVX32;" Is, indeed ridiculous. You just do not get that I am not talking about whether this is correct or not (it is not) but about it being presented as "the bug of the century" and discussed ad nauseam> Erik
"I NEVER said this was "correct" but I said "harping on it as a disaster is ridiculous"." Nobody is 'harping on it as a disaster'. We were having a perfectly reasonable, and to some of us interesting, technical discussion until you arrived and told us to 'shut up'. "but to state "I can not use the compiler because I need to reverse typedef const UINT32 volatile xdata *PCVX32; to be typedef const volatile UINT32 xdata *PCVX32;" Is, indeed ridiculous." Nobody said anything remotely like that. As usual you are making stuff up to justify your position. If you feel that is not the case please quote *with context* the relevant comment. "You just do not get that I am not talking about whether this is correct or not (it is not)" What you are saying, however, is that it is perfectly ok provided Keil document it. I have repeatedly explained to you why that is not ok. You appear unable to comprehend the explanation. "but about it being presented as "the bug of the century" and discussed ad nauseam>" Nobody has presented it as 'bug of the century'. As you clearly have no technical contribution to make to this thread could you please stop reducing the signal to noise ratio?
What you are saying, however, is that it is perfectly ok provided Keil document it. I have repeatedly explained to you why that is not ok. You appear unable to comprehend the explanation. CORRECTION: What you are saying, however, is that it is perfectly ok provided Keil document it. I have repeatedly explained to you why that in my opinion is not ok. You appear unable to comprehend the explanation. What I am "unable to comprehend" is that your opinion is always right. Erik
"What I am "unable to comprehend" is that your opinion is always right" It isn't my opinion. Take a look at the 'C' standard.
and your opinion is that to follow the standard in some obscure functionality is more important than a working compiler. do YOU now get it. Erik
Or perhaps that following the standard in some obscure functionality is the definition of "working" in the context of a compiler.
"and your opinion is that to follow the standard in some obscure functionality is more important than a working compiler." That is not my opinion. Please stop making false attributions.
"Or perhaps that following the standard in some obscure functionality is the definition of "working" in the context of a compiler." Precisely.
well if you do not want me to "make false attributions" the do not post the basis for same. Erik
"well if you do not want me to "make false attributions" the do not post the basis for same." Quote *with context* to support your statement, please.
"and your opinion is that to follow the standard in some obscure functionality is more important than a working compiler." That is not my opinion. Please stop making false attributions. ... well if you do not want me to "make false attributions" the do not post the basis for same. .... Quote *with context* to support your statement, please. you state: "So when you find bug in your software you think the best approach is to find a workaround and ignore it rather than investigating whether it has wider implications than those you have observed for a particular test case?" I stated no such thing, where did you get that idea from? So, you would be quite happy if you bought a 'C' compiler then discovered it actually compiled a language that wasn't 'C'? as a response to me stating that "requiring a certain sequence is insignificant", Did I state "language that is not C". so who is " making false attributions." The only point I am making is that while I state my opinions as opinions, you state yours as fact which is bull... Erik This is getting out of hand because you utterly refuse to see that my reponses to your utterings about this inconvenience being a disaster is not "is OK" but "is insignificant"
"you state: "So when you find bug in your software you think the best approach is to find a workaround and ignore it rather than investigating whether it has wider implications than those you have observed for a particular test case?" I stated no such thing, where did you get that idea from?" Didn't you notice the little '?' symbol that indicates it is a question? "So, you would be quite happy if you bought a 'C' compiler then discovered it actually compiled a language that wasn't 'C'? as a response to me stating that "requiring a certain sequence is insignificant", Did I state "language that is not C"." As usual you've chopped out the essential context to try and twist things to suit yourself. That context was: "42 int = volatile abc;" Which most certainly is not 'C', whatever you might think, or state. "so who is " making false attributions."" That, I'm afraid, is still you. "The only point I am making is that while I state my opinions as opinions, you state yours as fact which is bull..." As I have pointed out several times these 'opinions' that you refer to are not my opinions, they are facts. I urge you to refer to the 'C' standard. "This is getting out of hand because you utterly refuse to see that my reponses to your utterings about this inconvenience being a disaster is not "is OK" but "is insignificant"" Here you go making stuff up again. I have made no suggestion that what you describe as an 'inconvenience' is a disaster. It is a bug with a workaround. It is possible it could have wider implications - to establish whether it does or not would require investigation. You seem absolutely desperate to have the last word in this thread irrespective of the futility of your arguments. Well, go ahead. I'm done.