Applied a similar patch [1]; progress, thanks!
gdb bt now shows:
^C
Program received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
fpc_setjmp (S=
{RA = 4398704, SP = 2139211400, S0 = 2130823600, S1 = 5034972, S2
= 5035028, S3 = 4571000, S4 = 2000557128, S5 = 4587520, S6 = 4589204, S7
= 5034940, FP =
09.09.2014 9:53, Sven Barth пишет:
On 08.09.2014 22:54, Michael Ring wrote:
This smells like a problem I had on pic32. In my case the pic32 chips do
not have a floating point unit and the processor creates an illegal
instruction (or something similar) exception.
I solved this for me by
Sven Barth wrote:
On 08.09.2014 22:54, Michael Ring wrote:
This smells like a problem I had on pic32. In my case the pic32 chips do
not have a floating point unit and the processor creates an illegal
instruction (or something similar) exception.
I solved this for me by patching out the call to
On Tue, September 9, 2014 10:20, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
.
.
I was wondering whether a completely empty program would be a better
test than a Hello, World!. Could a completely empty program be
recognised by the compiler etc. as a special case and built with only
minimal RTL initialisation,
Am 09.09.2014 08:53 schrieb Sergei Gorelkin sergei_gorel...@mail.ru:
09.09.2014 9:53, Sven Barth пишет:
On 08.09.2014 22:54, Michael Ring wrote:
This smells like a problem I had on pic32. In my case the pic32 chips do
not have a floating point unit and the processor creates an illegal
Am 09.09.2014 10:30 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd
markmll.fpc-de...@telemetry.co.uk:
Sven Barth wrote:
On 08.09.2014 22:54, Michael Ring wrote:
This smells like a problem I had on pic32. In my case the pic32 chips do
not have a floating point unit and the processor creates an illegal
09.09.2014 13:19, Sven Barth пишет:
Am 09.09.2014 08:53 schrieb Sergei Gorelkin sergei_gorel...@mail.ru
mailto:sergei_gorel...@mail.ru:
09.09.2014 9:53, Sven Barth пишет:
On 08.09.2014 22:54, Michael Ring wrote:
This smells like a problem I had on pic32. In my case the pic32 chips do
Tomas Hajny wrote:
On Tue, September 9, 2014 10:20, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
.
.
I was wondering whether a completely empty program would be a better
test than a Hello, World!. Could a completely empty program be
recognised by the compiler etc. as a special case and built with only
minimal
This problem also looks similar, there are two procedures in setjump.inc
and they both address the fpu:
ctc1 $v0,$31
cfc1 $v0,$31
Michael
Am 09.09.14 um 08:29 schrieb Reinier Olislagers:
Applied a similar patch [1]; progress, thanks!
gdb bt now shows:
^C
Program received signal
Sergei, I have reworked the patch based on your comment:
http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revisionrevision=28634
Do you think this is solved better now?
Michael
Am 09.09.14 um 08:52 schrieb Sergei Gorelkin:
09.09.2014 9:53, Sven Barth пишет:
On 08.09.2014 22:54, Michael
On 09/09/2014 12:08, Michael Ring wrote:
This problem also looks similar, there are two procedures in setjump.inc
and they both address the fpu:
Thanks.
Patched [1] setjump.inc and now get
#0 fpc_setjmp (S=
{RA = 4398696, SP = 2143770920, S0 = 2135383120, S1 = 12489692, S2
= 12489748, S3
On Tue, September 9, 2014 12:00, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Tomas Hajny wrote:
On Tue, September 9, 2014 10:20, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
.
.
I was wondering whether a completely empty program would be a better
test than a Hello, World!. Could a completely empty program be
recognised by the
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
In addition, what is the supposed difference between an empty program
and program built with only minimal RTL initialisation?
I don't see why something like this
program test;
begin
end.
should use anything other than the absolute
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
In addition, what is the supposed difference between an empty program
and program built with only minimal RTL initialisation?
I don't see why something like this
program test;
begin
end.
should use anything other than
09.09.2014 14:33, Michael Ring пишет:
Sergei, I have reworked the patch based on your comment:
http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revisionrevision=28634
Do you think this is solved better now?
No, my point was that routines SysInitFPU and SysResetFPU from inc/generic.inc must
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
Your observation reduces to letting the compiler figuring out that in the
system unit initialization the FPU Initialization can be safely skipped, and
that possible state (like the FPU control word) is not important.
This is nearly
Am 09.09.2014 11:19 schrieb Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com:
Am 09.09.2014 08:53 schrieb Sergei Gorelkin sergei_gorel...@mail.ru:
I also wonder what is the correct way to generate code that calls
softfpu:
1) -SfSOFTFPU
2) -CfSOFT
3) -Ce
?
I only know -CfSOFT and that is what I
17 matches
Mail list logo
