Clock = 8
Config OSC = INTIO67
#pragma config FOSC = INTOSC, CLKOUTEN = ON, PLLEN = OFF, WDTE = OFF, LVP = OFF
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
return (EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
#include<xc.h>
#pragma config FOSC = INTRCIO, WDTE = OFF
Also, Is C the same everywhere? This doesnt seem to be the case between different compilers and how they set up the chips
void main(void){
}
Also, Is C the same everywhere? This doesnt seem to be the case between different compilers and how they set up the chips
PORTB |= %00100000;
bitset (PORTB,5);
PORTB.5 = 1;
PORTBbits.RB5 = 1;
B5=1;
Code:bitset (PORTB,5); PORTB.5 = 1; PORTBbits.RB5 = 1; B5=1;
All of the above are standard (ansi) C.
I didn't know that, I've always used the |= version. Oh well, I've learn't something to save me some typing in the future.
All of the above are standard (ansi) C.
The first one is a macro that probably translates to "PORTB |= 0b00100000;"
Second and third one uses bitfields.
The last one is probably a macro to a bitfield.
You know I hate to disagree..... But Mike is correct.. The other definitions are in the processor header files
RB5 = 0 directly assembles to PORTBbits.RB5... They are both a type definition that's all...
make[2]: *** No rule to make target `x86)/Microchip/xc8/v1.20/include/pic12f1840.h)', needed by `dist/default/production/Test.X.production.hex'. Stop.
make[2]: Leaving directory `C:/Users/chris/MPLABXProjects/Test.X'
make[1]: *** [.build-conf] Error 2
void SetupClock ()
{
OSCCON = 0b01110010;
}
#define _xtal_freq_8000000
#include <xc.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#pragma config FOSC = INTOSC, CLKOUTEN = ON, PLLEN = OFF, WDTE = OFF, LVP = OFF
;
void SetupClock(void);
void SetupClock ()
{
OSCCON = 0b01110010;
}
void main(int argc, char** argv) {
SetupClock();
}
People may have different opinions on that, some believe C is a "pure" concept that can't be deviated, where I believe that a really good embedded C compiler deviates more from standard C to a form of C which compiles and performs better on an embedded application (ie an "embedded refined" form of C).
Hmm The IDE seems buggy. Keeps marking "_delay_us(25)" as wrong, even though I have defined the xtal frequency, but the compiler compiles.
Hmm The IDE seems buggy. Keeps marking "_delay_us(25)" as wrong, even though I have defined the xtal frequency, but the compiler compiles.
Atleast Im not alone in my pursuit of trying to use this Compiler.
__delay_ms(25);
Wrong how? Usually the compiler gives out an error message of some sort. Post the message.
Have you turned optimizations on? The delays do not work properly if optimizations are turned off.
#include <xc.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pic12f1840.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <legacy/../plib/delays.h>
#define _XTAL_FREQ 8000000
#define RA5 (PORTAbits.RA5)
#pragma config FOSC = INTOSC, CLKOUTEN = OFF, PLLEN = OFF, WDTE = OFF, LVP = OFF
void SetupClock(void);
;
void SetupClock ()
{
OSCCON = 0b01110010;
}
void IntADC (void)
{
//** Initalise Ports FOR ADC **//
PORTA = 0x00;
TRISA = 0b00001111; //RA4,RA5 outputs, RA0, RA1 Inputs
//** Set Up ADC Parameters **//
ANSELA = 0b00000111; //RA4 Output, All others input
ADRESH = 0x00; //Set the analog high bits to 0
ADRESL = 0x00;
ADCON1 = 0b1001000; // Sets ADRESL to contain the first 7 bits of conversion, ADRESH will have the final 3 bits.
} // void InitADC(void)
void main(int argc, char** argv) {
SetupClock();
IntADC;
unsigned int ADCresult;
ADCON0bits.ADON = 1; //Turns on ADC module
ADCON0bits.CHS = 0; //AN0 as input
while (1)
{
__delay_us(25);
ADCON0bits.GO = 1; //Starts Conversion
while (ADCON0bits.GO_nDONE) continue; //wait till ADC conversion is over
{
ADCresult = (ADRESH<<8) + ADRESL ; //Merging the MSB and LSB
if (ADCresult > 512)
RA5 = 1;
else
RA5 = 0;
}
}
}
MikroC is probably the best on the market re PIC 16F/18F and has extremely comprehensive library functions ready to go for just about any peripheral. It also accepts bit manipulation and defines, which compile to good assembler, so
PORTB.F5 = 1;
assembles to a single instruction;
BSF PORTB,5
beware of lesser compilers that will compile a single bit set instruction to slower/fatter/worse assembler like;
MOVLW (mask)
IORWF PORTB
People may have different opinions on that, some believe C is a "pure" concept that can't be deviated, where I believe that a really good embedded C compiler deviates more from standard C to a form of C which compiles and performs better on an embedded application (ie an "embedded refined" form of C).
The LAT registers [18F series] allow direct access to the output. When reading, you should read PORTx, but writing should be done to LATx. The reason is to avoid "read modify write" effects. This is where the chip will change one pin (usually due to a bsf/bcf instruction you did on the port), but the other 7 pins are read. They could be read to be in a different state than they were last outputting. Capacitance on the line, as well as pullups/downs can cause this strange effect, as can process variation.
The difference may not be noticable in many cases because if you write to the whole PORTx at one time, then you will change all 8 bits at once, so it doesn't matter what is read. Also, when using bsf/bcf on a port, the port may not be loaded down enough to read as an incorrect value. However, once it reads as another value, that value gets written to the output (latch) register, and then it will continue outputting that new state.
To avoid this with PIC16 devices, you never bsf/bcf a port, you simply read the port, write it to another register, modify that register, then read that register and write it back to the port. This is known as "shaddowing". The PIC18 is easier, since instead of needing to do that, you write to the LATx register directly, thus skipping the read step in hardware.
Here is the code...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?