• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 82 subscribers
  • Views 245 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TMS320F280049: Such a warning is always reported in the CLA assembly file, [E0004] Cannot redefine existing opcode 'EALLOW' with .define. Assembler ignoring .define.

Ben Qin
Intellectual 2690 points
Part Number: TMS320F280049

Hi Team,

There's an issue from the customer need your help:

Such a warning is always reported in the CLA assembly file: [E0004] Cannot redefine existing opcode 'EALLOW' with .define. Assembler ignoring .define.

Although it does not affect the operation, I am afraid that there will be some problems, and they will always be reported in some insignificant places:

Best Regards,

Ben

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 244710 points

    I need to reproduce the problem.  I presume the file CLA.asm includes no other files.  Please put that file in a zip and attach it to your next post.  I need to see all the options used when building this file  Build the project, then copy the command issued to build this file from the Console view.  

    Thanks and regards,

    -George

  • 0 in reply to George Mock
    TI__Intellectual 2690 points

    Hi George,

    I'm afraid not, the code is encrypted.

    Best Regards,

    Ben

  • 0 in reply to Ben Qin
    TI__Guru**** 244710 points

    According to the error ...

    Ben Qin said:
    [E0004] Cannot redefine existing opcode 'EALLOW' with .define. Assembler ignoring .define.

    A line similar to this one appears in the assembly code.

    Fullscreen
    1
    .define "another_name", EALLOW
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Such a line, if allowed, redefines the instruction mnemonic EALLOW.  It is clear that no such line is present.  But the error diagnostic is issued anyway.  Because I don't know why that happens, I need a test case which allows me to reproduce it.  Without that test case, there no way to advance the issue.

    Thanks and regards,

    -George