Re: [avr-libc-dev] LPM instructions in optimized code causes unintended behavior in execution

Joerg Wunsch schreef: As Wouter van Gulik wrote: IMHO, the respective code is hand-crafted asm code in avr-libc. Are you sure? The code is about a jump table, is that in avr-libc? Errm, you are right... We should probably file a bug report at binutils as well. gas is excepting an

Re: [avr-libc-dev] LPM instructions in optimized code causes unintended behavior in execution

Wouter van Gulik schreef: Joerg Wunsch schreef: As Wouter van Gulik wrote: IMHO, the respective code is hand-crafted asm code in avr-libc. Are you sure? The code is about a jump table, is that in avr-libc? Errm, you are right... We should probably file a bug report at binutils as well.

Re: [avr-libc-dev] LPM instructions in optimized code causes unintended behavior in execution

- Oorspronkelijk bericht - As Thomas Carsten Franke wrote: I did not restored the NVM CMD because I didn't know that it would has to be. This is correct.  We recently added a note to the documentation in the header file avr/pgmspace.h telling that on Xmega devices, all the

Re: [avr-libc-dev] LPM instructions in optimized code causes unintended behavior in execution

On 17/06/10 10:15, Thomas Carsten Franke wrote: Am 17.06.2010 09:38, schrieb Wouter van Gulik: Wouter van Gulik schreef: Joerg Wunsch schreef: As Wouter van Gulik wrote: IMHO, the respective code is hand-crafted asm code in avr-libc. Are you sure?

[avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?

apologies if this is the wrong list or something i missed in the archives. short story: i get an ICE w/ gcc 4.6 when building avr-libc-1.4.8. longer story: i needed to re-install an avr toolchain and already had binutils/gcc in source-code-control form laying around so i just re-built them for

RE: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?

-Original Message- From: avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu.org [mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu. org] On Behalf Of dpc Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:40 PM To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs

Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?

Weddington, Eric eric.wedding...@atmel.com writes: -Original Message- From: avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu.org avr-libc-1.6.8? apologies if this is the wrong list or something i missed in the archives. short story: i get an ICE w/ gcc 4.6 when building

RE: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?

-Original Message- From: dpc [mailto:wea...@meer.net] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:54 PM To: Weddington, Eric; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8? Weddington, Eric eric.wedding...@atmel.com writes: sorry, that's a typo for the

RE: [avr-libc-dev] LPM instructionsin optimized code causes unintended behavior in execution

-Original Message- From: avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu.org [mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu. org] On Behalf Of Wouter van Gulik Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:18 PM To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev]

RE: [avr-libc-dev] LPM instructionsin optimized code causes unintended behavior in execution

-Original Message- From: Weddington, Eric Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:15 PM To: 'Wouter van Gulik'; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org Subject: RE: [avr-libc-dev] LPM instructionsin optimized code causes unintended behavior in execution As a matter of fact (checking code

Re: [avr-libc-dev] gcc4.6 vs avr-libc-1.6.8?

As Weddington, Eric wrote: I would actually suggest using GCC 4.4.3. It's gotten more testing than the bleeding edge. Nevertheless, wouldn't an ICE be worth a (GCC) bug report anyway? -- cheers, Jorg .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/