[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pc386 BSP] ticker.exe issue (CVS head)
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:16:33 -0600
- From: joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com (Joel Sherrill)
- Subject: [pc386 BSP] ticker.exe issue (CVS head)
Karel Gardas wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Karel Gardas wrote:
>>> I was not able to find out which toolchain combination I used in
>>> August 2005, nor which exact version of RTEMS I used that days. I've
>>> tried to get back in CVS history, but also w/o success.
>>> Anyway, I tried to debug this issue, and I started with hacking
>>> ticker.exe test. I've added some printfs and/or a bit waiting before
>>> creating next task and now I see at least TA3 is running as
>>> expected. The issue is while others are not running/ticking?
>>> See patch below. If you uncomment added printfs, TA3 should run
>>> well. If I keep it as it is, tasks are just started and after short
>>> period of time I get a lot of messages to the console -- I cannot
>>> read them, since it scrolls too fast and its VGA. I've tried the
>>> same in Qemu and got:
>>> silence:/images$ ~/usr/local/qemu-2005-12-18/bin/qemu -fda
>> I get the same thing with my RPMs but when I use my gcc tools from
>> the head,
>> ticker runs. They were built January 24.
> You mean gcc from trunk? i.e. 4.2 experimental? If so, then which
$ i386-rtems4.7-gcc --version
i386-rtems4.7-gcc (GCC) 4.2.0 20060124 (experimental)
The same 2.16.1 binaries just copied into place. I have not tried the
gcc 4.1 branch yet.
This is what makes me wonder if it is a stack issue and something is close.
>> Also FWIW I am using a serial port as a console on qemu. Looking at
>> the address, my first guess would be a blown stack
> Yes, but how is it possible and especially how is it possible with so
> many gcc/binutils toolchain combination? The pity is I'm not able to
> find the source tree I used for pc386 timer hacking in August 2005,
> that might help us with debugging of this...
I recall that it worked for me with gcc 3.3.x RPMs. I never trusted gcc
I would have to reinstall them to try.