Is it true that some programmers require the hex file records to be arranged in ascending order according to their addresses? I faced a problem with a programmer, the software stopped writing to the chip at a certain line and gave an error. There was no problem with the hex file ( I used a simulator which takes the hex file as input, and it worked properly) Thanx..
Yep. This was true a long time ago. In fact, it may still be true, but I haven't heard of this on any contemporary programmers. Note that this is not a requirement of the Intel HEX specification. If needed, the following knowledgebase article tells how to sort HEX records. http://www.keil.com/support/docs/1236.htm Jon
"... gave an error ..." Precisely what error did it give?
the error was:
Programmer error at address
address changed eacg time I tried to program That's a pretty strong clue that the unordered records in your HEX file are not the reason for this. Software doesn't usually fail in different ways if you repeatedly do the same thing with it. It's rather more likely that your hardware (either the programmer itself, or the chip you're trying to (re)program) is flaky.
just a guess are you specifying that actual chip derivative you want to program or one thet "should be the same" ? Erik
I don't get the question. What do you mean?
"just a guess are you specifying that actual chip derivative you want to program or one that "should be the same" ?" I don't get the question. What do you mean? The programmer require you to enter the chip you are programming. do you enter the chip you are programming or another derivative because your programmer does not have an entry for the chip you are using? Rephrase: what chip are you trying to program? what do you enter into the programmer software as the chip it is to program? Erik
The programmer automatically detects the chip and its type. The chip is AT89C51.
The programmer automatically detects the chip and its type. Which programmer? Does it come back and tell you which chip (it thinks) it is programming? I have found that the most unreliable thing about programming uCs is reading the device ID, I guess I click 'ignore' on "wrong device ID' one time out of 3. Erik