hi everybody ..

if i write:

btfss REG,3
goto R1
goto R2

hoping that R1 is executed if REG(3)=1 and R2 is executed when REG(3)=0 .. but what happens with me is like follows:

if REG(3)=1 then the program will jump one instruction, ignoring R1, jumpting to R2 .. nice ..

but if REG(3) = 0, program won't jump anywhere and it will execute R1 and sequentially executes R2 too .. so in the case of REG(3)=0, both R1 and R2 will be executed ..

how can i separate them .. plz help ..

 

Put a 'btfsc reg, 3' between the two instructions. So it looks like

btfss REG,3
goto R1
btfsc REG, 3
goto R2

So that way if it branches down R1 when it returns R2 will be skipped...

 

Why do not use CALL instead? That is what I would do.

With GOTO you are creating a problem to yourself. You need extra code after it.

 

This is what I usually do:
btfss REG,3
goto R1
.....code to be executed if REG,3 = 1
.....
goto finished
R1
......code to be executed if REG,3 =0
.....
finished

 

Why do not use CALL instead? That is what I would do.

With GOTO you are creating a problem to yourself. You need extra code after it.

You might want to watch out using the call statement when a GOTO is more approriate at times, using call statements with out something to return to will cause a stack overflow error......

Goto in this case is more appropriate....

My. 02

 

Put a 'btfsc reg, 3' between the two instructions. So it looks like

btfss REG,3
goto R1
btfsc REG, 3
goto R2

So that way if it branches down R1 when it returns R2 will be skipped...

Good idea, but isn't BTFSS skip if set? The OP wants R1 when Reg,3 is set. I think all you need to do is reverse R1 and R2.

John

 

thaaaaanks alot all of u .. I admired the idea of cheezewizz .. and it worked properly ..

 

You might want to watch out using the call statement when a GOTO is more approriate at times, using call statements with out something to return to will cause a stack overflow error......

Goto in this case is more appropriate....
My. 02

My suggestion was wrong. If the OP wanted a GOTO a CALL was not correct.

Sorry for suggesting that!