Keil C does not support this line:
typedef const UINT32 volatile xdata *PCVX32;
typedef const volatile UINT32 xdata *PCVX32;
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.