On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:51 AM, William "Chops" Westfield
wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
>
> > For a while there I thought it might be finding the minimum pwm value
> and eliminating the iterations up to that value from the loop--which it's
> entitled to do given what wa
On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
> For a while there I thought it might be finding the minimum pwm value and
> eliminating the iterations up to that value from the loop--which it's
> entitled to do given what was coded.
That's a discouraging thought. How would I prevent this fro
I did stare at it a little longer this morning and decided it probably did
make sense, though I didn't spend enough time to try to prove it. For a
while there I thought it might be finding the minimum pwm value and
eliminating the iterations up to that value from the loop--which it's
entitled to d
On Mar 27, 2013, at 4:47 AM, Peter Bigot wrote:
> is the code actually wrong?
Good question. I can't tell just by looking at it, you can't tell either.
I don't think that is a good thing, especially since there is an "obvious"
translation that looks just as efficient. I'll have to analyze mo
Eric forwarded the example to me and I was able to build it, so:
First, WTF1 is apparently gcc attempting to redefine zero for the body of
the loop to be relative to the induction variable. You'd have to do the
algebra to figure out if it's equivalent to the expressions in the code,
but it's outs
William: Attachments don't work so well on mailing lists; I can't find it
anywhere, and your excerpt is far too opaque to see what's going on
("led1_off;" apparently hides either a function call or an assignment
statement of some form, but I have no clue what it does or how the data
objects it acce
yeah that looks weird.
I don't know how much testing -mcpu=430 has had done on it.
All of the testing I've seen and have used myself uses -mmcu= ie.
ie
-mmcu=msp430f1611
or
-mmcu=msp430f2618
or
-mmcu=msp430f5438a
If that help, submit a bug report and see what Peter says about it.
> If you give me more information about what you are seeing (perhaps send me
> the code and how you are invoking the toolchain) I'll see what I can figure
> out.
Sure. I got sucked into a conversation on comparative microcontroller
architectures, and have been providing sample code produced by
Hi Bill,
Eric here.
That is the current non-experimental version and should work. It is the
most recent primary version. It support the CPUX cpus just not the 20 bit
extensions.
There is also an experimental version 4.7 that has 20 bit support.
If you give me more information about what you
It's been a while since I've tried any msp430 hacking, so I updated my install
to the latest that's available via fink, which is:
msp430-gcc (GCC) 4.6.3 20120301 (mspgcc LTS 20120406 unpatched)
That doesn't seem to be very recent; is there an update for fink?
Also, is that version supposed to
10 matches
Mail list logo
