Hello,
I write code for Tiny13 embedded applications using 'C' to improve
maintainability. Due to some small issues I decided to update my entire
toolchain to the latest (greatest?) versions. Upon going back to some
old projects I notice that re-compiling makes the code grow quite
horribly. In
On Monday 16 February 2009 15:11, Robert von Knobloch wrote:
On inspection I find that the compiler has 'in-lined' at least 3
function calls that I had written as a function to achieve compactness.
Is there any way I can stop this, or is this a bug?
There has been some discussions about this
-Original Message-
From: John Regehr [mailto:reg...@cs.utah.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:49 PM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: Andy Warner; avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: RE: More volatile musings [was: Re: [avr-gcc-list]
memcpy() : problem when passing destination
Hi,
add OS_main attribute to main function,
-mtiny-stack
Anatoly.
___
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
I explicitly inline code with the following attribute
#define _INLINE_ static inline __attribute__((always_inline))
For my medium size project (lots of menus/graphics/various sensors and serial
port devices)
1) -no-inline-small-function- 69034
2) --param inline-call-cost=2 - 68964
3)
What follows is a pretty typical sequence for a vararg function on the
XMEGA. In particular, why does the code generator do the funky double
call rather than just subtract the right number from the SP? I am
guessing this is a left-over code from the early XMEGA stack handling.
Also typical,
-Original Message-
From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of larry barello
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 10:37 AM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] GCC
-Original Message-
From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of larry barello
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 10:37 AM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] GCC
I have code producing strange results. The application uses an 8-bit
counter and overflow counts to measure distance with an ultrasonic
transponder. The overflow and count look Ok. Fitting an equation to
experimental data, I get
dist = 0.013657 * cnts + -3.996578.
Converting the
Ruud Vlaming wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2009 15:11, Robert von Knobloch wrote:
On inspection I find that the compiler has 'in-lined' at least 3
function calls that I had written as a function to achieve compactness.
Is there any way I can stop this, or is this a bug?
There has been some
larry barello wrote:
I explicitly inline code with the following attribute
#define _INLINE_ static inline __attribute__((always_inline))
For my medium size project (lots of menus/graphics/various sensors and serial
port devices)
1) -no-inline-small-function- 69034
2) --param
Thomas D. Dean schrieb:
I have code producing strange results.
Hi. Your code looks strange, too ;-)
distance = =895*distance;
[...]
895*distance generates a call to __mulsi3, multiplying r25:22 by r21:18
and returning the result in r25:22.
However, I cannot find where r21:18
-Original Message-
From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of David Brown
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 2:32 PM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Re:
-Original Message-
From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of David Brown
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 2:31 PM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Re: Code
Weddington, Eric wrote:
-Original Message- From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu. org]
On Behalf Of David Brown Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 2:32 PM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org Subject:
Weddington, Eric wrote:
-Original Message- From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu. org]
On Behalf Of David Brown Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 2:31 PM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org Subject:
-Original Message-
From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of David Brown
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:07 PM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Re: Code
-Original Message-
From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of David Brown
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:04 PM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Re:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 23:37 +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
distance = =895*distance;
See my followup message about the typo.
distance = 895*distance.
[...]
895*distance generates a call to __mulsi3, multiplying r25:22 by r21:18
and returning the result in r25:22.
Thomas D. Dean tomd...@speakeasy.org wrote:
However, I cannot find where r21:18 are set in the code.
For me, they always get set right before the call:
b6: 29 e2 ldi r18, 0x29 ; 41
b8: 39 e0 ldi r19, 0x09 ; 9
ba: 40 e0 ldi r20,
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 07:05 +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
So you'd have to explain which compiler version exactly you are using
(including patches).
I am using the Ubuntu 8.10 package, installed with apt-get. Most likely
from the ANL archive.
# avr-gcc --version
avr-gcc (GCC) 4.3.0
...
#
Thomas D. Dean tomd...@speakeasy.org wrote:
I am using the Ubuntu 8.10 package, installed with apt-get. Most
likely from the ANL archive.
# avr-gcc --version
avr-gcc (GCC) 4.3.0
Ouch. That's most likely an unpatched GCC 4.3.0, which was known to
have many (sic) serious bugs for the AVR
22 matches
Mail list logo
