On 09/11/17 17:49, Szikra Istvan wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> What is exactly wrong with my code?
>
> Thanks by the way for __get_PSP and all your help.
This is getting into ARM stuff, and is therefore off-topic for the
avr-gcc list (as you noted below). But the principles are fairly
cross-target.
On 09.11.2017 17:49, Szikra Istvan wrote:
Hi David,
What is exactly wrong with my code?
Thanks by the way for __get_PSP and all your help.
This is what it looks like on my end:
__STATIC_INLINE uint32_t __get_PSP(void)
{
register uint32_t __regProcessStackPointer __ASM("psp");
Assuming th
Hi David,
What is exactly wrong with my code?
Thanks by the way for __get_PSP and all your help.
This is what it looks like on my end:
__STATIC_INLINE uint32_t __get_PSP(void)
{
register uint32_t __regProcessStackPointer __ASM("psp");
return(__regProcessStackPointer);
}
in
C:\Program Files
On 09/11/17 04:57, Szikra Istvan wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thanks for the SP, I missed that.
> And apparently Atmel Studio also cannot find it, and underlines it with
> red error marker.
> It does compile, and I have found it in avr/common.h, it's probably a
> problem with __AVR_ARCH__ handling by AS...
>
Hi
Thanks for the SP, I missed that.
And apparently Atmel Studio also cannot find it, and underlines it with red
error marker.
It does compile, and I have found it in avr/common.h, it's probably a
problem with __AVR_ARCH__ handling by AS...
I guess that's what I get for trusting the IDE:)
I know
Szikra Istvan schrieb:
Hi all,
I have this interesting test case for you guys, and girls.
#include
unsigned int GetStackPointer()
{
volatile unsigned int sp = (SPH << 8) | SPL;
There is "SP" for you. Ne need to hamper with bytes.
uint16_t GetStackPointer (void)
{
return SP;
}
Hi Szikra,
> So it is 2017, but the compiler still cannot optimize away bitwise or
> zero... :(
I think this is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41076
(which should be fixed in gcc 7 according to the comments). The fix
contains a peephole optimization that I think catches exactly this
Hi all,
I'm writing C++ code, but I made the example a C project. Yeah (void)
I do use stdint.h, stddef.h, stdbool.h I just try to avoid the include hell
for examples. ;)
Note: avr/io.h already includes inttypes.h which includes stdint.h, so I
probably should have used uint16_t.
I use GetStackPo
On 08/11/17 10:21, Sergey A. Borshch wrote:
> On 08.11.2017 11:03, David Brown wrote:
>> (Also, if you are writing C rather
>> than C++, your function declaration is not correct.) The sensible way
>> to write this is:
>>
>> static inline uint16_t GetStackPointer(void)
>> {
>> return (SPH << 8)
On 08.11.2017 11:03, David Brown wrote:
(Also, if you are writing C rather
than C++, your function declaration is not correct.) The sensible way
to write this is:
static inline uint16_t GetStackPointer(void)
{
return (SPH << 8) | SPL;
}
It's not correct declaration too. Function name cl
On 07/11/17 20:36, Szikra Istvan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have this interesting test case for you guys, and girls.
>
>
> #include
>
> unsigned int GetStackPointer()
> {
> volatile unsigned int sp = (SPH << 8) | SPL;
> return sp;
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
> while(1)
> {
>
Hi Matthijs,
I believe you are right, that makes sense.
(I should have realized that, but it was a quite a while ago I read/wrote
AVR asm... well you learn something new every day;)
Thank you.
It was compiled with -O1.
Compiling with -Os does not seem to make a difference.
Best regards,
Szikr
Hi Szikra,
I believe these pushes and pops are just meant to allocate 2 bytes on
the stack.
> 222: cd b7in r28, 0x3d ; 61
> 224: de b7in r29, 0x3e ; 62
This loads Y with SP, so the location of the 2 pushed bytes
> 226: 2e b7in r18, 0x3e ; 62
> 228: 8d b7in r24
Hi all,
I have this interesting test case for you guys, and girls.
#include
unsigned int GetStackPointer()
{
volatile unsigned int sp = (SPH << 8) | SPL;
return sp;
}
int main(void)
{
while(1)
{
PORTA.OUT = GetStackPointer();
}
}
After building it with Atmel Studi
14 matches
Mail list logo
