How do I get rid of this warning?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pommie

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
I've got an MPLABX project and the latest version of the compiler seems to have gone insane with warnings,
Code: 
main.c:97:40: warning: implicit conversion loses integer precision: 'int' to 'uint8_t' (aka 'unsigned char') [-Wconversion]
    uint8_t addr = (PORTC & (uint8_t)7)<<(uint8_t)1;
            ~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~
I've cast everything I can think of and it's still all over my code.
Where is the conversion?
What is the Error number so I can disable it?

If I change it to, uint8_t addr = (PORTC & 7)*2; then no warning is given - even though it's going from 9 bit to 8 bit (I know it isn't really).
It seems to occur whenever << is used such as uint8_t temp=1<<pin;

I like to have my code error free so I can instantly see if a new error (or warning) has appeared.
However, XC8 is now warning me about stuff in library calls,
Code: 
/opt/microchip/xc8/v2.41/pic/sources/c99/common/Umul8.c:4:: advisory: (1510) non-reentrant function "___bmul" appears in multiple call graphs and has been duplicated by the compiler

This is only an Advisory and I have a number, 1510 so I can use #pragma warning disable 1510 - yes, it's a warning.

The older versions of XC8 didn't do this - maybe I need to look for an archive. I'm using a new install on Linux hence the newer XC8.

How do I install old compilers in Linux?

Mike.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Considering MicroChips own code, as generated by the MCC, and also in their application notes, commonly produces warnings, then it's hardly a major concern.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I hate and try to get rid of any warnings in my code so I instantly see if a new one appears - you never know I may have inadvertently put if(x=1) etc. and I want those warnings. I can of course instantly fix it by changing to if(x==1). However, warnings like addr=(PORTC&7)<<1; are just wrong. And no amount of casting gets rid of them.

JUST WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

And, microchip should be fixing these obvious bugs - which they don't.

It might not be a major concern but when I can't see the wood (real errors) for the trees (Microchip imagined errors) then it is a concern.

Mike.
And, where is that list of error levels?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pommie said:
I hate and try to get rid of any warnings in my code so I instantly see if a new one appears - you never know I may have inadvertently put if(x=1) etc. and I want those warnings.
And, where is that list of error levels?
Click to expand...

Do you get a warning for that?, I don't recall ever seeing one? - it's a perfectly valid and correct statement, it just doesn't do what you intended - apparently it's better to use (1==x) as if you put (1=x) by mistake, it gives an error. However, I must admit, I never do

I can't remember where I got the list of warnings from?, other than it involved google

It might even have been one warning at a time?, rather than a list.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is the warning you get if you accidentally put if(x=1) etc.
Code: 
main.c:91:14: warning: using the result of an assignment as a condition without parentheses [-Wparentheses]
    if(CCP2IF=1){
       ~~~~~~^~
Again, no warning number but it does tell you how to silence the warning,
main.c:91:14: note: place parentheses around the assignment to silence this warning


Mike.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've just tried, where days is an unsigned int:

C: 
if(days=1)
{
    
}

And it gives the warning:

Code: 
main.c:588: warning: (758) constant conditional branch: possible use of "=" instead of "=="

I can't say I've ever noticed it before though?.

Rather strangely, if I try:

C: 
if(CCP2IF=1)
{
    
}

It doesn't give a warning at all?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
We seem to have two different sets of warnings but yours at least has a warning number.

Just tried various versions of if(CCP1IF=1) and always get the warning.

I also get a "note" (not sure what a "note" is except a warning with a different name!!!)
Code: 
main.c:91:14: note: use '==' to turn this assignment into an equality comparison

It's another Microchip mystery.

Mike.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
How do I get 64MHz on 18F25k22
Replies
10
Views
5K
Pommie
P
P
XC8 warning - what is wrong?
Replies
7
Views
5K
tumbleweed
T
P
  • Question
MPLAB X How do I make a release version?
Replies
15
Views
5K
granddad
M
  • Question
I'm trying to reprogram this microcontroller
Replies
2
Views
2K
microbeetle
M
A
ASM: Cure a 202 Warning - Argument out of range. Least significant bits used.
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
rjenkinsgb
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…