cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

reg262.def issue on Tasking EDE v2.7 r5 - st10f276 based

mrbit
Associate II
Posted on June 17, 2004 at 09:16

reg262.def issue on Tasking EDE v2.7 r5 - st10f276 based

4 REPLIES 4
mrbit
Associate II
Posted on August 26, 2003 at 07:09

We r migrating our project to the new Tasking EDE v2.7 r5 for st10f276. We designate the reg276.def in Assembler Options -> Miscellaneous Tab and include the reg276.h. If I choose to display all warnings, it says

5: $DEBUG

W 101: primary control 'DEBUG' already set

7: $EXTEND

W 101: primary control 'EXTEND' already set

8: $NOMOD166

W 101: primary control 'NOMOD166' already set

9: $STDNAMES(reg262.def)

W 101: primary control 'STDNAMES' already set

10: $EXTMAC

W 101: primary control 'EXTMAC' already set

total errors: 0, warnings: 5

In fact, I have nothing associated with reg262.def in my project and I don't know what it is for. I compared reg276.def and reg262.def. They are about the same.

Can anyone explain the warnings to me? And the relationship between reg262.def and reg276.def? Thanks a lot!

charles239955_st
Associate II
Posted on September 02, 2003 at 12:00

This is happening because of the start.asm file provided by Tasking. In this file some settings are already defined and it is redundant with the global settings selected in your project configuration. Therefore you have this warning.

For the reg262.def file, this is a ''bug'' of the Tasking: whatever the ST10F2xx you select, it will link the reg262.def file with the start.asm and you have the redundancy with the reg276.def file you selected. This is because the ST10R262 was the first ST10 device with the MAC unit.

So the warnings you get are ''normal'' and will not impact the correctness of your application.

This behavior should have been corrected, at least the .def file, in the v8.0r1 release which fully supports the ST10F276 device.
mrbit
Associate II
Posted on September 04, 2003 at 00:06

Thanks.

werner2
Associate II
Posted on June 17, 2004 at 09:16

Do you know, whether this problem is corrected with tasking V8.0?