On 4/12/11 10:05 PM, Russell Whitaker wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Hi,
just a heads up, I got romcc to segfault with the following sample
program:
--------------------- 8< snip 8< --------------------------------------
typedef unsigned int u32;
#define DEFAULT_RCBA 0xfed1c000
#define GCS 0x3410
#define RCBA32(x) *((volatile u32 *)(DEFAULT_RCBA + x))
void test(void)
{
RCBA32(GCS) &= (~0x04);
}
--------------------- >8 snip >8 --------------------------------------
I tried to simplify this further and this construct is still crashing
romcc:
--------------------- 8< snip 8< --------------------------------------
u32 *gcs = (u32 *)(DEFAULT_RCBA + GCS);
*gcs &= (~0x04);
--------------------- >8 snip >8 --------------------------------------
while this one is working
--------------------- 8< snip 8< --------------------------------------
u32 *gcs = (u32 *)(DEFAULT_RCBA + GCS);
u32 temp = *gcs;
temp &= (~0x04);
*gcs = temp;
--------------------- >8 snip >8 --------------------------------------
Is that a construct that we just can't/don't want to support in romcc?
Or is there a chance we can fix that?
Stefan
Just for comparison used gcc -S to compile the 3 snippets.
The first compiled without error.
[..]
Russel,
Not sure what you tried, but they all compile without error. You have to
wrap example 2 and 3 with
typedef unsigned int u32;
#define DEFAULT_RCBA 0xfed1c000
#define GCS 0x3410
void test(void)
{
and
}
before actually running them through gcc.
--
coreboot mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
