[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pc386 BSP] ticker.exe issue (CVS head)



Karel Gardas wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> Karel Gardas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> 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 
>>> /images/grub-boot.flp
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 
> binutils?
>
$ 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
>> somewhere.
>
>
> 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 
3.4.

I would have to reinstall them to try.

--joel