Setup HI-TECH PICC8.02 compiler and MPLab 6.4

===SNIP===

MPLAB update for PICC v8.02 did not solve my problem.

Gerry

IIRC, there's some kind of an issuse with the length of file paths on that compiler (which is still DOS-y at the core). You might try moving your files to a directory closer to the root, especially if you're using Win2K etc.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Spehro Pefhany wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Yes, this may be it. I found that using short path and filenames *without* spaces allowed me to use MPLAB and PICC. E.g.

c:\proj\foo\foo.c

instead of

c:\program files\long pathname with spaces\fooBarBazBuzz.c

You can fool it into working with the latter by running something like this at startup:

subst M: "c:\program files\long pathname with spaces\fooBarBazBuzz.c"

Then you can use M:\fooBarBazBuzz.c

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Spehro Pefhany wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Excellent tip. In fact I do something similar so that I always develop from the P: drive (P for Projects) no matter where I am. E.g. at home I have c:\projects mapped as p: and when I go to clients' networks I just need to map my source tree appropriately to ensure that p: starts at my project root dir.

Thanks. BTW, I should not have pasted his file name into the subst line though. ;-) Sheesh! More cappuccino, please.

subst M: "c:\program files\long pathname with spaces"

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Another caution: If you set that up in autoexec.bat you will have to use the short filenames in the subst command, because long filename support does not exist when autoexec is executed. At least for W9x.

It's not necessary under Win2K.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

CBFalconer wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com:

Since that Win9x is unusable for anything but testing the reset switch on one's PC I don't see this as a practical problem. :-)

My practice is to reboot every couple of weeks, or whenever something else aborts. My system keeps a record, of which the following is an extract:

Booted at 10-03-03 21:37:36 Booted at 10-09-03 14:48:30 Booted at 10-15-03 17:22:36 Booted at 10-25-03 14:44:18 Booted at 10-26-03 05:02:40 Booted at 11-16-03 16:09:04 Booted at 11-19-03 11:36:02 Booted at 11-30-03 11:29:34 Booted at 12-06-03 11:43:33 Booted at 12-17-03 10:35:01 Booted at 12-19-03 16:25:04 Booted at 12-26-03 19:01:24

(I was away, and the machinery shut down, between 12-19 and

Conceded, W98 can be harmed by runaway applications. So can anything in supervisor or root mode or the equivalent. There is nothing preventing use in a semi-intelligent manner.

CBFalconer wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com:

Why not just get Win2k? It's *far* more robust, especially if used in a semi-intelligent manner.

I can't stomach the EULA, and I don't want anything denying me access to my own machine. I see no reason to encourage Microsoft in any way. Color me fogy.

Don't you have any programs that don't run on win2k? I have a few. I have one win98 on one PC for that reason, and win2k on two others. My win98 machine will run for days if I decide to leave it on, but I don't see any need for that.

Mark

"Mark" wrote in news:cZzIb.9415$ snipped-for-privacy@news20.bellglobal.com:

Not one. I refuse to support developers who don't support the NT-based OS's (or Linux).

I have mine on 24/7 so I just couldn't deal with Wintendo versions of Windows. I can appreciate that there are some reasons to continue using it however.

Regards,

CBFalconer wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com:

Fair enough.