I have a bootloader that I would like to start at 0x0E00 in an ATMega48
(no special boot loader section in FLASH). It has 2 functions that should
be placed in the following order: bootloader(), smallFunction().
I created a .bootloader section and I ask the linker to put it at 0x0E00
and
Hi,
This is my first post to this forum. I'm not even sure it's the right place to post, but I think so.
I'm trying this with an ATmega8, with a 500Hz oscillator connected at INT0, using WinAVR (avr-gcc 3.4.3).
I noticed the problem using this code:
unsigned short RotCount;
David Bourgeois wrote:
I have a bootloader that I would like to start at 0x0E00 in an ATMega48
(no special boot loader section in FLASH). It has 2 functions that
should be placed in the following order: bootloader(), smallFunction().
I created a .bootloader section and I ask the linker to
Flemming Steffensen (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
Hi,
This is my first post to this forum. I'm not even sure it's the right
place to post, but I think so.
I'm trying this with an ATmega8, with a 500Hz oscillator connected at
INT0, using WinAVR (avr-gcc 3.4.3).
I noticed the problem using
Hi Flemming,I'd assume thi happens because you increment RotCount in an interrupt and interrupts are active while you are testing the condition. The AVR is an 8 bit CPu and the 16bit test will take a couple of instructions. As you are doing nothing else in the loop the chance is that the interrupt
Hi Flemming,
I think you should disable intrerupts for the time
of comparing. 16 bit compare (load) is not atomic.
This is your code compiled by me (you better use
volatile if don`t want the whole loop to be optimized away).
volatile unsigned short RotCount; void test(void){
while (1){
That's not a bug.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:47:33 -0800 (PST), Flemming Steffensen (sent
by Nabble.com) wrote:
unsigned short RotCount;
Please use:
volatile unsigned short RotCount;
Volkmar
___
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
On 18.1.2006 16:47, Flemming Steffensen (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
unsigned short RotCount;
SIGNAL(SIG_INTERRUPT0){
RotCount++;
}
void test(void){
while (1){
RotCount = 0;
while (RotCount 1000) {}
RotCount = 0;
Yes. I noticed that without optimization, the linker keep the order the
functions appear in the code but if I turn on optimization (-Os) then the
smaller function comes first.
Actually the small function is
void i2cWaitForComplete(void)
{
while( !(TWCR _BV(TWINT)) ); /* wait for the i2c
Thanks Paulo, Eric, Marcus, David, Andras, Dave, Jeff, Francisco, Alan who has up to now answered my question and all others who will be doing so.
Way back in my mind, I had this litle voice wispering interrupts... I just couldn't hear it over all the other and louder thoughts.
Thanks for
In the source code, the smaller function comes after but is located before
in the .lss file.
With optimization -O0, it's correctly located after.
I attached the source code and the makefile (generated by avrstudio) I use
if it can be of any help.
Thanks
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:22:52 +0100,
Hello all, In one of my projects (ATMega128 based) I am using floating point numbers and sprintf to write a formatted record to a buffer. Tthe buffer contents is then sent to a mini printer. The first two records print properly and thereafter I am getting garbage from sprintf!! The
12 matches
Mail list logo
