🚀 go-pugleaf

HI ScOe,

I have mulled over your remark for a bit, and wonder about the following.

I think the term RomCode[i] is in fact not generating the address as I 
initially intended.

In fact, the address could be in fact an offset relative to the start 
address supplied in the calling mechanism.

To be precise here, I think the address generated is original offset +  (i * 
sizeof(TxROMCode)); The intention is to address the individual bytes of the 
TxROMCode structure.

As a result your solution of  *RomCode[i] is also probably not the correct 
solution.

Two ways to address this that occur to me are:

val = ((char *)RomCode) [i] & (1 << (b %8));

or

val =  (Romcode + i) & (1 << b % 8));

The other manipulation routines should also be amended in a similar fashion.

Maybe you should try this ??

Regards



Bruce

"ScOe" <__cbinders@hotmail.com__> wrote in message 
news:4338f3fe$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> Andrue Cope's query of my posting triggered a recognition of an error 
>> that
> I
>> had made in the code previously supplied. Herewith an updated version of
>> that code that should now suffice.
>>
>> Thanks to Andrue Cope for his observation.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bruce Knowles
>
> Ok, this seems to be correct accept few minor mistakes.
>
>>
>>         // Get the Sernumbit
>>         val = RomCode[i] & (1 << (b % 8));
>>
> i think this one should be *RomCode[i], because on call like you wrote i 
> get
> illegal use of pointer error.
>
> Thank you all for your help!
>
>