Re: [Sdcc-user] [sdcc - Open Discussion] RE: syntax error: token -> 'BitVar' ;

[roelof 't Hooft <roelofh@it...>]

Hi Maarten,

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 11:50 +0100, Maarten Brock wrote:
> Hi Roelof,
> 
> There is no reply-to address because the question was 
> posted in the Open Discussion forum. You get an email 
> from it probably because you are monitoring this forum. 
> The whole idea about a forum is that everyone can read 
> the contents, including your answers. If it was your 
> intent to answer the O/P only you can send him a 
> personal message.

It was not my intention to answer the OP directly.
I just clicked the reply button and expected it to
have the email address set to sdcc-user@... not
noreply@...


>  Otherwise post your reply in the forum 
> to which there probably was a link in the email 
> notification you received.

The original post did not have a reply to at the bottom
part of the email I received, just checked it again.
Also your reply to the OP post does not have that.
There is only something about monitoring the forum.

My "complaint" which I sent to sdcc-user@... does indeed
have the reply to at the bottom in the email I received
from back from the forum.
I hope that makes sense, otherwise we will do this in
dutch, offline :-)

roelof

Re: [Sdcc-user] [sdcc - Open Discussion] RE: syntax error: token -> 'BitVar' ;

[Maarten Brock <sourceforge.brock@ds...>]

Hi Roelof,

There is no reply-to address because the question was 
posted in the Open Discussion forum. You get an email 
from it probably because you are monitoring this forum. 
The whole idea about a forum is that everyone can read 
the contents, including your answers. If it was your 
intent to answer the O/P only you can send him a 
personal message. Otherwise post your reply in the forum 
to which there probably was a link in the email 
notification you received.

Greets,
Maarten

> Hi moderator of this group,
> 
> Why is the reply-to address set to noreply@... ?
> Or the better question is, why is the reply-to field removed ?
> (I do not see it in the email headers)
> 
> I posted a response to this question about _bit keyword
> and of course it did not go through because I did not
> notice the wrong reply address, annoying.
> 
> roelof
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 20:47 -0800, SourceForge.net wrote:
> > please any one help me with this error
> 
> Start by reading the manual, in particular this page :
> http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccman.html/node59.html#SECTION00441700000000000000
> 
> Or look at a processor header file like this :
> less /opt/sdcc/share/sdcc/include/mcs51/p89lpc938.h
> (I keep my compiler in /opt/, you might find the header
> files in /usr/local/share/sdcc/include/mcs51/)
> 
> There is all the information you need to solve your
> problem.
> 
> Hint : you do not need the "__at (0xyy)" to get your
> example compiling. The __at "command" is used to get
> access to a bit in a SFR for instance. The compiler
> will place your bit definition at the start of the
> RAM bit addresses which starts at 0x20.
> 
> roelof

Re: [Sdcc-user] [sdcc - Open Discussion] RE: syntax error: token -> 'BitVar' ;

[roelof 't Hooft <roelofh@it...>]

Hi moderator of this group,

Why is the reply-to address set to noreply@... ?
Or the better question is, why is the reply-to field removed ?
(I do not see it in the email headers)

I posted a response to this question about _bit keyword
and of course it did not go through because I did not
notice the wrong reply address, annoying.

roelof

-------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 20:47 -0800, SourceForge.net wrote:
> please any one help me with this error

Start by reading the manual, in particular this page :
http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccman.html/node59.html#SECTION00441700000000000000

Or look at a processor header file like this :
less /opt/sdcc/share/sdcc/include/mcs51/p89lpc938.h
(I keep my compiler in /opt/, you might find the header
files in /usr/local/share/sdcc/include/mcs51/)

There is all the information you need to solve your
problem.

Hint : you do not need the "__at (0xyy)" to get your
example compiling. The __at "command" is used to get
access to a bit in a SFR for instance. The compiler
will place your bit definition at the start of the
RAM bit addresses which starts at 0x20.

roelof