Moving a signed variable to numeric variable

Vijay Subramaniyan · New User Joined: 06 Jul 2011 Posts: 14 Location: india

hI all,

I want to move a variable X with PIC 9V9(4) to a variable Y with PIC 9(5).
When I tried , it didnt get moved . .Kindly provide a solution how I can achieve this .

X PIC 9V9(4) VALUE ZERO.
Y PIC 9(5) VALUE ZEROES.

Phrzby Phil · Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:08 pm

1. Your subject says "signed variable," yet neither are.
2. They are also both numeric.
3. Review other postings to see what info you must provide:
a. the initial and final values of each variable (decimal and hex)
b. the MOVE statement
c. what your intent is, since your PIC's are incompatible

Also, you must show your code (data and procedure) as-is using the code tag so we know what you really tried, now just what you thought you tried or wanted to try.

Bill Woodger · Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:39 pm

dbzTHEdinosauer · Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:45 pm

1. if you actually coded a MOVE X TO Y in your program, then indeed X was moved to Y.

2. the only values of X that will 'appear to be moved' to Y are those greater than 0.9999,
since Y can only will contain values in the integer range of > 1 and < 100000.
But X can only contain integer values in the range of =>1 and <10
or: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

e.g. if X contains 0.9999
MOVE X TO Y
will result in Y = 00000.

My apologies to Bill for my post. Saw his after I posted mine (took a while to edit and perfect my thesis).

but i decided to leave mine anyway,
as it seems the TS has made no attempt to understand the implication of PIC clauses.

Bill Woodger · Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:05 pm

No worries, dbz. Mine was less complete.

Maybe he just wants a REDEFINES anyway?

dick scherrer · Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:39 pm

Hello,

I suspect it will help if TS will explain what DID happen (yes, it did get moved, though most likely NOT with the result intended) and what was the desired outcome. . . .

I.E - when it works, what value should be in Y?

Phrzby Phil · Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:26 pm

As usual, we talk amongst ourselves.

enrico-sorichetti · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:35 am

but at lest we understand each other

dick scherrer · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:56 am

Usually. . . .

Bill Woodger · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:59 pm

At least when we don't, it doesn't take five back-forward posts to clarify.

Also little things like "I don't understand", "sorry, I got that wrong", "my fault", etc, not using "terminology" just because it sounds cool, all those little things, about good communication, help. When we have a problem, we acknowledge it is a problem, not something that just "happened" and we were in the same room at the time. We don't try to imagine what the problem is, and then get the facts to fit the picture. 93.758% of the time, to two decimal places, it is just a simple error from some sort of code, usually that we have written, or from the data.

Rats. I could go on, but no-one is reading by now...

Akatsukami · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:46 pm

Bill Woodger · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:54 pm

That was the example of the "simple mistake".

I could imagine all sorts of weird things to explain such an event, overlapping memory, new version of the compiler, someone with a magnet standing too close to the CPU etc, but when it comes down to reality, and when I start from the "correct" end, I very soon see the mistake of thinking I am using two places, when in fact I've defined it with three.

A lot of the time with this type of problem, just the act of telling someone else what you think is going on will show one the answer without any further hassle.

"Ah, dang, I see it. Thanks for you help" - and all you did is sit there and look inscrutable.

Bill Woodger · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:55 pm

Since you are still there Vijay, why don't you pop back and let us know how this is going?