Hi,
I'm experimenting with the -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections
parameters of mspgcc.
The goal is to split a TinyOS application between near and far flash
memory using the large memory model. If I do this without special
compile parameters, only a small amount of code ends up in the .text
section (presumably the ISRs), and the rest is put in .far.text, rather
than filling up .text first.
Now unfortunately -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections seem to be
broken in mspgcc 4.7.0 20120911.
For example, if I compile the TinyOS Blink application for telosb with
them, I get:
/tmp/ccb7btaA.s:1220: Error: Missing symbol name in directive
/tmp/ccb7btaA.s:1220: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized
character is `x'
/tmp/ccb7btaA.s:1221: Error: expected comma after name `' in .size directive
/tmp/ccb7btaA.s:1222: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized
character is `0'
/tmp/ccb7btaA.s:1224: Error: Missing symbol name in directive
/tmp/ccb7btaA.s:1224: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized
character is `x'
/tmp/ccb7btaA.s:1225: Error: expected comma after name `' in .size directive
/tmp/ccb7btaA.s:1226: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized
character is `0'
/tmp/ccb7btaA.s:1229: Error: Missing symbol name in directive
... and lots more of those.
The problem is that the assembler code contains addresses instead of
symbol names:
.LIRD0:
.size main, .-main
.section .bss.0x0019,"aw",@nobits
.type 0x0019, @object ;Line 1220
.size 0x0019, 1
0x0019:
.zero 1
.type 0x0019, @object
.size 0x0019, 1 ;Line 1225
0x0019:
.zero 1
.section .bss.0x001D,"aw",@nobits
.type 0x001D, @object
.size 0x001D, 1 ;Line 1230
I tried this without any special options, i.e. with memory model "none".
It compiles fine on mspgcc 4.6.3 20120406.
The thread at [1] mentions the same issue, but without a solution. And
in [2] Peter suggests the problem is caused by the asm statement, which
is treated differently by gcc 4.7.
However, the code above seems to correspond to the following
declarations in app.c (each appearing in several functions):
static volatile uint8_t r __asm("0x0019");
static volatile uint8_t r __asm("0x001D");
So they are already static.
Is there a known workaround for this issue?
Thanks,
Martin
[1] - http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/2012-10/msg00111.html
[2] -
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CAPOJ94M1tobePYig6XdJjwTVamFj1DC2uDFyUu%3DZChzFHBApUw%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=mspgcc-users
--
Martin Zoller ? Tinynode <http://www.tinynode.com/> ? System Architect ?
Lausanne ? D: +41 21 510 11 81 ? F: +41 21 510 11 71 ?
martin.zol...@tinynode.com <mailto:martin.zol...@tinynode.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
_______________________________________________
Mspgcc-users mailing list
Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
