Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code
Von: Grant Edwards Gesendet am: 02 Jul 2010 16:27:35 It has, however, some serious drawbacks. As in it doesn't work? :) Well this IS a drawback, isn't it? :) Generating source listings from a linked program using objdump has never worked for any target architecture I've tried. IMO, you're beating your head against the wall trying to generate source listings with objdump. The feature is there, so it was (once) supposed to work. Generating them for individual files by passing appropriate flags to the assembler has always worked on all the architectures I've used (though I can't vouce for gcc 4.x on the '430, it works fine with 3.x). Yes, and for debugging separate object files, this is okay. However, the relocations are not done (of course) and the resulting positions of the code are sometimes important. It is possible to use just the assembly listing and the individual object file listing, yet it is also possible to write complex programs in plain assembly language but this is no reason to not use a high- level language such as C. :) If I switch on some more info in the global .lst, the comments show 'File a, line x' yet the source code is from file b, line x or even line y. So the info is there (File a line x would be correct). Even the path of file a is shown correctly (so using VPATH is not aproblem) But then somehow things get messed up. Seems that objdump is unable to extract line x in file a and extracts line y from file b instead. Based on how completly it's broken and how long it's been that way, I assumed that it wasn't supposed to work... Since the source file and its complete path is known as well as the correct line number (it's properly included into the listing), there is no reason why the included source line is almost completely random. And it shouln't be difficult to fix. A Filename with path, a line number, that's C for beginners. Maybe just nobody cared for fixing it (even if it should be easy), maybe because of more importan bugs, and when these were fixed, none of the programmers remembered the bug anymore and the users had accepted it and resigned. I'd do it myself if I had a linux machine and the proper tools. Yet my company has given me a windows machine and the only programming tools are MSPGCC, AVRGCC and VisualC++. And I have different hobbies than programming in my spare time too :)
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code
Von: N. Coesel Gesendet am: 01 Jul 2010 14:19:57 I too use objdump to generate a complete project listing from the elf file. It has, however, some serious drawbacks. Not only that jumps and calls are not printed with their symbolic name, also the source code in the listing is sometimes (often) from a completely different file or from different lines of the same file. So it is virtually useless. AFAIK this is the result of compiling with optimisation on. If you want a proper list file with source code mixed in, you should compile without optimisation (-O0) and with full debugging enabled (IIRC -g3). At least thats how it works for me when using GCC in general. No, its not an optimization problem. The individual .lst files of the object files are fine. Sometimes, the source is a bit mangled by optimization, (and sometimes, the assembler will show som boguse unreachable code warnings too due to optimization, but in general it fits. At least the source is form the same function. But in the global .lst file that objdump generates, the source code is a real mess. I can't find a pattern too. Sometimes the source code is okay, somethimes it is a completely different part of the right file, sometimes it is from a completely different source file not related to the code at all. If I switch on some more info in the global .lst, the comments show 'File a, line x' yet the source code is from file b, line x or even line y. So the info is there (File a line x would be correct). Even the path of file a is shown correctly (so using VPATH is not aproblem) But then somehow things get messed up. Seems that objdump is unable to extract line x in file a and extracts line y from file b instead. JMGross
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code
On 2010-07-02, JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote: Von: N. Coesel Gesendet am: 01 Jul 2010 14:19:57 I too use objdump to generate a complete project listing from the elf file. I've never seen that work except for extremely trivial programs. It has, however, some serious drawbacks. As in it doesn't work? :) Not only that jumps and calls are not printed with their symbolic name, also the source code in the listing is sometimes (often) from a completely different file or from different lines of the same file. So it is virtually useless. AFAIK this is the result of compiling with optimisation on. If you want a proper list file with source code mixed in, you should compile without optimisation (-O0) and with full debugging enabled (IIRC -g3). At least thats how it works for me when using GCC in general. No, its not an optimization problem. The individual .lst files of the object files are fine. Sometimes, the source is a bit mangled by optimization, (and sometimes, the assembler will show som boguse unreachable code warnings too due to optimization, but in general it fits. At least the source is form the same function. But in the global .lst file that objdump generates, the source code is a real mess. Generating source listings from a linked program using objdump has never worked for any target architecture I've tried. IMO, you're beating your head against the wall trying to generate source listings with objdump. Generating them for individual files by passing appropriate flags to the assembler has always worked on all the architectures I've used (though I can't vouce for gcc 4.x on the '430, it works fine with 3.x). I can't find a pattern too. Sometimes the source code is okay, somethimes it is a completely different part of the right file, sometimes it is from a completely different source file not related to the code at all. That's the behaivior I've always seen when trying to generate source listings using objdump. If I switch on some more info in the global .lst, the comments show 'File a, line x' yet the source code is from file b, line x or even line y. So the info is there (File a line x would be correct). Even the path of file a is shown correctly (so using VPATH is not aproblem) But then somehow things get messed up. Seems that objdump is unable to extract line x in file a and extracts line y from file b instead. Based on how completly it's broken and how long it's been that way, I assumed that it wasn't supposed to work... -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I have accepted at Provolone into my life! gmail.com
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code
I too use objdump to generate a complete project listing from the elf file. It has, however, some serious drawbacks. Not only that jumps and calls are not printed with their symbolic name, also the source code in the listing is sometimes (often) from a completely different file or from different lines of the same file. So it is virtually useless. I guess the problem is related to the fact that I do not compile into the source folder (but into a /bin subdir) and also compile code from a common folder. The .lst ifles directly generated by the compiler with the option -Wa,-ahlms=$(addprefix $(OBJDIR)/,$(notdir $(:.c=.lst))) is fine. Of course the compiler knows the correct source :) Yet I use mspgcc 3, not 4. JMGross On 2010-06-30, Diane Gagne drose.ga...@gmail.com wrote: I am in the process of moving from mspgcc 3.2.3 to mspgcc4, but I am having trouble with the creation of the .lst files. When my source is compiled with the 3.2.3 the list files have the C code printed in them along with the assembly. Using the same makefile, and compiling with the mspgcc4 the C code goes away which makes it harder to read. I realize that objdump will give me close to what I am looking for, but those files do not have the jumps listed. Is there a way to get the C code back, maybe a default option changed that I do not realize?
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code
I noticed the missing C source in mspgcc4 too a while ago. There is a difference between mspgcc3 and mspgcc4 in this area. But it could also be the underlying binutils which cause this behaviour. Just tried to compile an ordinary X86 program using GCC 4.4.3 on Ubuntu with these options: CFLAGS += -Wa,-adhlns=$(subst $(suffix $),.lst,$) This one gives me listing with C source mixed. It looks like a mspgcc issue. Mspgcc4 has an additional -Xassembler arg option, but that one has the same behaviour. Regards, Hans On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:42:24 +0200 JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote: I too use objdump to generate a complete project listing from the elf file. It has, however, some serious drawbacks. Not only that jumps and calls are not printed with their symbolic name, also the source code in the listing is sometimes (often) from a completely different file or from different lines of the same file. So it is virtually useless. I guess the problem is related to the fact that I do not compile into the source folder (but into a /bin subdir) and also compile code from a common folder. The .lst ifles directly generated by the compiler with the option -Wa,-ahlms=$(addprefix $(OBJDIR)/,$(notdir $(:.c=.lst))) is fine. Of course the compiler knows the correct source :) Yet I use mspgcc 3, not 4. JMGross On 2010-06-30, Diane Gagne drose.ga...@gmail.com wrote: I am in the process of moving from mspgcc 3.2.3 to mspgcc4, but I am having trouble with the creation of the .lst files. When my source is compiled with the 3.2.3 the list files have the C code printed in them along with the assembly. Using the same makefile, and compiling with the mspgcc4 the C code goes away which makes it harder to read. I realize that objdump will give me close to what I am looking for, but those files do not have the jumps listed. Is there a way to get the C code back, maybe a default option changed that I do not realize? -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code
- Original Message - From: JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de To: MSPGCC mailing list, mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code I too use objdump to generate a complete project listing from the elf file. It has, however, some serious drawbacks. Not only that jumps and calls are not printed with their symbolic name, also the source code in the listing is sometimes (often) from a completely different file or from different lines of the same file. So it is virtually useless. AFAIK this is the result of compiling with optimisation on. If you want a proper list file with source code mixed in, you should compile without optimisation (-O0) and with full debugging enabled (IIRC -g3). At least thats how it works for me when using GCC in general. Nico Coesel
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:19:57 +0200 N. Coesel n...@nctdev.nl wrote: AFAIK this is the result of compiling with optimisation on. If you want a proper list file with source code mixed in, you should compile without optimisation (-O0) and with full debugging enabled (IIRC -g3). At least thats how it works for me when using GCC in general. No, does not work for me on mspgcc4. X86 gcc4 gives me c source intermixed even with -O2 and just -g. On mspgcc3 I use -Os and -g with the expected results. Of course you can question the usefulness of source and assembly mixing using -O2, but that's another subject. Regards, Hans Nico Coesel -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code
Excellent; thank you. With this help I've determined that the msp430 patches to gcc don't enable the check for dwarf2 support on that architecture; as a result the compiler won't generate the line information required for integrated listings. This is probably why another user has complained that gdb can't find file locations. I've verified that a patch to gcc's configure script changes the configuration so the proper symbols are defined. I'll do additional testing, see if there are other features that aren't being supported because of a similar problem, and get it into the mspgcc4 git repository and push the patch upstream to the primary mspgcc4 maintainers for release. It should be available for builds from the git repository by Friday morning; I can't speak to when it'll be available in svn or as pre-built packages. Peter On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Hans Nieuwenhuis vz...@xs4all.nl wrote: I noticed the missing C source in mspgcc4 too a while ago. There is a difference between mspgcc3 and mspgcc4 in this area. But it could also be the underlying binutils which cause this behaviour. Just tried to compile an ordinary X86 program using GCC 4.4.3 on Ubuntu with these options: CFLAGS += -Wa,-adhlns=$(subst $(suffix $),.lst,$) This one gives me listing with C source mixed. It looks like a mspgcc issue. Mspgcc4 has an additional -Xassembler arg option, but that one has the same behaviour. Regards, Hans On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:42:24 +0200 JMGross msp...@grossibaer.de wrote: I too use objdump to generate a complete project listing from the elf file. It has, however, some serious drawbacks. Not only that jumps and calls are not printed with their symbolic name, also the source code in the listing is sometimes (often) from a completely different file or from different lines of the same file. So it is virtually useless. I guess the problem is related to the fact that I do not compile into the source folder (but into a /bin subdir) and also compile code from a common folder. The .lst ifles directly generated by the compiler with the option -Wa,-ahlms=$(addprefix $(OBJDIR)/,$(notdir $(:.c=.lst))) is fine. Of course the compiler knows the correct source :) Yet I use mspgcc 3, not 4. JMGross On 2010-06-30, Diane Gagne drose.ga...@gmail.com wrote: I am in the process of moving from mspgcc 3.2.3 to mspgcc4, but I am having trouble with the creation of the .lst files. When my source is compiled with the 3.2.3 the list files have the C code printed in them along with the assembly. Using the same makefile, and compiling with the mspgcc4 the C code goes away which makes it harder to read. I realize that objdump will give me close to what I am looking for, but those files do not have the jumps listed. Is there a way to get the C code back, maybe a default option changed that I do not realize? -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Creating .lst files with C code
On 2010-06-30, Diane Gagne drose.ga...@gmail.com wrote: I am in the process of moving from mspgcc 3.2.3 to mspgcc4, but I am having trouble with the creation of the .lst files. When my source is compiled with the 3.2.3 the list files have the C code printed in them along with the assembly. Using the same makefile, and compiling with the mspgcc4 the C code goes away which makes it harder to read. I realize that objdump will give me close to what I am looking for, but those files do not have the jumps listed. Is there a way to get the C code back, maybe a default option changed that I do not realize? Can you give us a hint as to what options are you using to generate the listing? -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I just remembered at something about a TOAD! gmail.com
