 | | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) Because there were some decisions made as to what "incorrect" macros were and weren't by the egcs/gcc teams. For some time, this made compiling the Linux kernel with the newest egcs a serious problem. (...) Cool. -Luis (...) ###...### (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
Les Smithson <lsmithso@hare.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:Fs0v5B.J44@lugnet.com... (...) You saved me the trouble of posting the exact same fix. Thanks. I'm concerned there might be other problems caused by this bug. Fixing this routine treats (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) I think the compiler was generating incorrect code. I'm no gcc expert, but the asm macros looked OK to me, and besides, why should the macro work in one compiler version & not the other? FYI, I fixed it by compiling the source to an assembler (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) Sorry... I was going to recommend the same thing last night, but got sidetracked (it has been a tough two days to be a Duke basketball fan.) I have a question: from where in the code is the incorrect assembly generated? i.e., could it be (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) That was probably me. I don't know anything about GCC asm macros so I wasn't sure if it was a bug in memcpy or a bug in GCC's code generation. I solved the problem by going to egcs-1.1.2 which generates correct code. I was hoping that someone (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Priority problem...
|
|
Okay. sorry for cluttering the group with this drival... my main task was intefering with task priorities due to a while loop doing nothing at the end... after removing it and letting the main task end.. the task for sensor worked fine with lower (...) (25 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) Could you describe the bug to us more clearly, i.e. what was the produced code, and what did you modify, so others won't run into the same trouble again, please? Thanks, Eddie C. Dost ecd@skynet.be (25 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
I've been able to fix my code by hand modifying the assembler code that is produced and using that instead of the .c code. I'm concerned, however, that the bug in GCC might manifest itself in other ways. Is there a patch for GCC available somewhere? (...) (25 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Priority problem...
|
|
With a simple program... I have a task watching a touch sensor. If the task is given PRIO_NORMAL I am able to read the sensor in the task... If the task is given PRIO_NORMAL-1, I can't. I have checked the execi return values in both cases and in (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
In an attempt to track down my RCX lockup problems I've been rereading the older messages and came across the discussion that sounded exactly like my problem: the RCX locks up when dll is executed. The conclusion was that bad code was generated for (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
