From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2013-05-05 14:42:16
|
Hello SDCC friends, Today the first Release Candidate (RC1) for SDCC 3.3.0 was created and put online in our SourceForge File section. https://sourceforge.net/projects/sdcc/files/ If you have the time, please verify it and report back with the positive or negative results. Happy programming, Maarten Brock |
From: Patryk <pa...@wp...> - 2013-05-05 23:50:01
|
8051 part installs fine on Win 98 machine, builds successfully my ~7kB project. Not much changed in generated code, I'm about to verify if it still works. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maarten Brock" <sou...@ds...> To: <sdc...@li...>; <sdc...@li...> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 4:42 PM Subject: [sdcc-devel] SDCC 3.3.0 RC1 created > Hello SDCC friends, > > Today the first Release Candidate (RC1) for SDCC 3.3.0 was created and put > online in our SourceForge File section. > https://sourceforge.net/projects/sdcc/files/ > > If you have the time, please verify it and report back with the positive > or negative results. > > Happy programming, > Maarten Brock > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite > It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production > Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2 > _______________________________________________ > sdcc-devel mailing list > sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel > |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2013-05-06 08:15:09
|
On 05.05.2013 16:42, Maarten Brock wrote: > Hello SDCC friends, > > Today the first Release Candidate (RC1) for SDCC 3.3.0 was created and put > online in our SourceForge File section. > https://sourceforge.net/projects/sdcc/files/ > > If you have the time, please verify it and report back with the positive > or negative results. > > Happy programming, > Maarten Brock I see warnings when building: libiberty/md5.c:117:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] *(md5_uint32 *) &ctx->buffer[bytes + pad] = SWAP (ctx->total[0] << 3); ^ libiberty/md5.c:118:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] *(md5_uint32 *) &ctx->buffer[bytes + pad + 4] = SWAP ((ctx->total[1] << 3) | ^ and SDCCtree_dec.hpp: In function ‘void thorup_E(std::multimap<unsigned int, unsigned int>&, const I_t&)’: SDCCtree_dec.hpp:108:62: warning: typedef ‘vertex_iter_t’ locally defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] typedef typename boost::graph_traits<I_t>::vertex_iterator vertex_iter_t; ^ In file included from SDCClospre.hpp:26:0, from SDCClospre.cc:24: SDCCtree_dec.hpp: In function ‘void thorup_E(std::multimap<unsigned int, unsigned int>&, const I_t&)’: SDCCtree_dec.hpp:108:62: warning: typedef ‘vertex_iter_t’ locally defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] typedef typename boost::graph_traits<I_t>::vertex_iterator vertex_iter_t; The latter two are definitely harmless (just an unused typedef). I have no idea about the first two. Philipp |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2013-05-06 08:29:03
|
> On 05.05.2013 16:42, Maarten Brock wrote: >> Hello SDCC friends, >> >> Today the first Release Candidate (RC1) for SDCC 3.3.0 was created and >> put >> online in our SourceForge File section. >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/sdcc/files/ >> >> If you have the time, please verify it and report back with the positive >> or negative results. >> >> Happy programming, >> Maarten Brock > > I see warnings when building: > > libiberty/md5.c:117:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will > break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] > *(md5_uint32 *) &ctx->buffer[bytes + pad] = SWAP (ctx->total[0] << 3); > ^ > libiberty/md5.c:118:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will > break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] > *(md5_uint32 *) &ctx->buffer[bytes + pad + 4] = SWAP ((ctx->total[1] > << 3) | > ^ I have seen these too but also noticed a lot of them in an unrelated project. I wonder if it is a relatively new warning from GCC. I have no idea what it means nor what to do about it. > and > > SDCCtree_dec.hpp: In function void thorup_E(std::multimap<unsigned int, > unsigned int>&, const I_t&): > SDCCtree_dec.hpp:108:62: warning: typedef vertex_iter_t locally > defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] > typedef typename boost::graph_traits<I_t>::vertex_iterator > vertex_iter_t; > ^ > In file included from SDCClospre.hpp:26:0, > from SDCClospre.cc:24: > SDCCtree_dec.hpp: In function void thorup_E(std::multimap<unsigned int, > unsigned int>&, const I_t&): > SDCCtree_dec.hpp:108:62: warning: typedef vertex_iter_t locally > defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] > typedef typename boost::graph_traits<I_t>::vertex_iterator > vertex_iter_t; > > The latter two are definitely harmless (just an unused typedef). I have > no idea about the first two. > > Philipp I did not get these when building on my VM. Have you enabled extra checks? If not you're probably using a newer GCC than I am. Maarten |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2013-05-06 12:05:31
|
On 06.05.2013 10:28, Maarten Brock wrote: > I did not get these when building on my VM. Have you enabled extra checks? > If not you're probably using a newer GCC than I am. I use 4.8.0. Philipp |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2013-05-06 13:01:03
|
> On 06.05.2013 10:28, Maarten Brock wrote: > >> I did not get these when building on my VM. Have you enabled extra >> checks? >> If not you're probably using a newer GCC than I am. > > I use 4.8.0. > > Philipp And I have GCC 4.7.2. I'm running on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. So, I guess the unused typedef warning is a new feature from gcc 4.8. Maarten |
From: Raphael N. <rn...@we...> - 2013-05-06 17:04:46
|
Hi, libiberty/md5.c:117:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] *(md5_uint32 *) &ctx->buffer[bytes + pad] = SWAP (ctx->total[0] << 3); This is probably caused by using a char * (ctx->buffer[128] is an array of char in struct md5_ctx), casting it to a type with size and alignment desire > 1 byte and dereferencing it. This should break on IA-64, SPARC et al. due to unaligned memory accesses unless the code around the expression guarantees that bytes+pad (and the alignment of buffer[] within md5_ctx) is a multiple of the alignment requirements of an md5_uint32 (probably 4). >From md5.c:112: pad = bytes >= 56 ? 64 + 56 - bytes : 56 - bytes, so bytes + pad is either bytes+(64+56-bytes)=120 or bytes+(56 - bytes)=56 -- in both cases a multiple of 4. As buffer[] is also declared to be aligned to the requirements of md5_uint32, this code is actually safe, but GCC fails to see that :-( I have seen this warning ofter in embedded C code, which often uses char[] to emulate some kind of a heap or untyped union (as done here), but have no clue as to how to elegantly or correctly remove the warning without introducing a suitable union around buffer[] in md5_ctx :-(. Since it occurs only in contributed code (incidentally from GCC/CPP sources ...), I would ignore that for now. Will probably be fixed with the next GCC/CPP merge into SDCC. Best regards Raphael |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2013-05-07 20:03:43
|
Hello again, It seems this bug has already been fixed in GCC 4.7.x where our version is based on 4.7.0. See: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53285 Borut, Do you have time to have a look at this and make an estimate of the risk involved? It would be nice if SDCC could compile without warnings on GCC 4.7.x. Maarten > Hi, > > libiberty/md5.c:117:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will > break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] > *(md5_uint32 *) &ctx->buffer[bytes + pad] = SWAP (ctx->total[0] << 3); > > This is probably caused by using a char * (ctx->buffer[128] is an array of > char in struct md5_ctx), casting it to a type with size and alignment > desire > 1 byte and dereferencing it. This should break on IA-64, SPARC et > al. due to unaligned memory accesses unless the code around the expression > guarantees that bytes+pad (and the alignment of buffer[] within md5_ctx) > is > a multiple of the alignment requirements of an md5_uint32 (probably 4). >>From md5.c:112: pad = bytes >= 56 ? 64 + 56 - bytes : 56 - bytes, so >> bytes > + pad is either bytes+(64+56-bytes)=120 or bytes+(56 - bytes)=56 -- in > both > cases a multiple of 4. As buffer[] is also declared to be aligned to the > requirements of md5_uint32, this code is actually safe, but GCC fails to > see that :-( > I have seen this warning ofter in embedded C code, which often uses char[] > to emulate some kind of a heap or untyped union (as done here), but have > no > clue as to how to elegantly or correctly remove the warning without > introducing a suitable union around buffer[] in md5_ctx :-(. Since it > occurs only in contributed code (incidentally from GCC/CPP sources ...), I > would ignore that for now. Will probably be fixed with the next GCC/CPP > merge into SDCC. > > Best regards > Raphael |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2013-05-07 20:11:30
|
On 07.05.2013 22:03, Maarten Brock wrote: > Hello again, > > It seems this bug has already been fixed in GCC 4.7.x where our version is > based on 4.7.0. See: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53285 > > Borut, > > Do you have time to have a look at this and make an estimate of the risk > involved? It would be nice if SDCC could compile without warnings on GCC > 4.7.x. > > Maarten Raphael showed that they are really just warnings, nothing serious. IMO Merging a new upstream version seems like something big enough to better do after the release. Philipp |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2013-05-07 21:19:21
|
On 07. 05. 2013 22:11, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > On 07.05.2013 22:03, Maarten Brock wrote: >> Hello again, >> >> It seems this bug has already been fixed in GCC 4.7.x where our version is >> based on 4.7.0. See: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53285 >> >> Borut, >> >> Do you have time to have a look at this and make an estimate of the risk >> involved? It would be nice if SDCC could compile without warnings on GCC >> 4.7.x. >> >> Maarten > Raphael showed that they are really just warnings, nothing serious. IMO > Merging a new upstream version seems like something big enough to better > do after the release. > > Philipp I agree with Philipp. The problem is fixed in the binutils CVS head which was not officially released yet. I propose to wait for the next binutils release (probably 2.24) and synchronize sdbinutils with it. BTW this is an old problem and it was present in all sdcc versions since sdbinutils was introduced. Borut |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2013-05-07 22:12:01
|
> On 07. 05. 2013 22:11, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >> On 07.05.2013 22:03, Maarten Brock wrote: >>> Hello again, >>> >>> It seems this bug has already been fixed in GCC 4.7.x where our version >>> is >>> based on 4.7.0. See: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53285 >>> >>> Borut, >>> >>> Do you have time to have a look at this and make an estimate of the >>> risk >>> involved? It would be nice if SDCC could compile without warnings on >>> GCC >>> 4.7.x. >>> >>> Maarten >> >> Raphael showed that they are really just warnings, nothing serious. IMO >> Merging a new upstream version seems like something big enough to better >> do after the release. >> >> Philipp > > I agree with Philipp. The problem is fixed in the binutils CVS head > which was not officially released yet. I propose to wait for the next > binutils release (probably 2.24) and synchronize sdbinutils with it. > > BTW this is an old problem and it was present in all sdcc versions since > sdbinutils was introduced. > > Borut Ok, agreed. I had not investigated deeper than the mentioned link. And I specifically only asked for a risk assessment. And even that only if time permited. Until now I have only found 2 small issues in the win32 installer: 1) Without meaning any disrespect I think the dedication to Dennis Ritchie can be removed. 2) The link to the online Changelog was not updated to the new location. Furthermore I still intend to update the sdas documentation as I added/modified it quite a lot, but documentation was not yet updated. Anyone else with documentation plans for the release? Maarten |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2013-05-08 05:46:59
|
On 08. 05. 2013 00:11, Maarten Brock wrote: >> On 07. 05. 2013 22:11, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >>> On 07.05.2013 22:03, Maarten Brock wrote: >>>> Hello again, >>>> >>>> It seems this bug has already been fixed in GCC 4.7.x where our version >>>> is >>>> based on 4.7.0. See: >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53285 >>>> >>>> Borut, >>>> >>>> Do you have time to have a look at this and make an estimate of the >>>> risk >>>> involved? It would be nice if SDCC could compile without warnings on >>>> GCC >>>> 4.7.x. >>>> >>>> Maarten >>> Raphael showed that they are really just warnings, nothing serious. IMO >>> Merging a new upstream version seems like something big enough to better >>> do after the release. >>> >>> Philipp >> I agree with Philipp. The problem is fixed in the binutils CVS head >> which was not officially released yet. I propose to wait for the next >> binutils release (probably 2.24) and synchronize sdbinutils with it. >> >> BTW this is an old problem and it was present in all sdcc versions since >> sdbinutils was introduced. >> >> Borut > Ok, agreed. I had not investigated deeper than the mentioned link. And I > specifically only asked for a risk assessment. And even that only if time > permited. IMHO the risk is very low (actually zero) if we leave it as it is as Raphael explained. > Until now I have only found 2 small issues in the win32 installer: > 1) Without meaning any disrespect I think the dedication to Dennis Ritchie > can be removed. Definitely, it was meant only for the 3.1.0 release! Obviously I forgot to remove it so it remained also in 3.2.0 release :-( > 2) The link to the online Changelog was not updated to the new location. Both issues are now fixed in the svn trunk. > Furthermore I still intend to update the sdas documentation as I > added/modified it quite a lot, but documentation was not yet updated. > Anyone else with documentation plans for the release? OK. No doc palns from me. Borut |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2013-05-08 12:57:32
|
Hi, I found another difference that I cannot explain. There were 4 files in the previous installation (3.2.0) that are now gone, but I cannot find in the Changelog that they were removed. I think they should not be there, so the new version seems better. They also were not present in 3.1.0. C:\Programs\SDCC320\include\ansidecl.h C:\Programs\SDCC320\include\bfd.h C:\Programs\SDCC320\include\bfdlink.h C:\Programs\SDCC320\include\symcat.h Maarten |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2013-05-08 15:22:01
|
I don't remember exactly but I think that I noticed this problem and fixed it, probably during the sdbinutils synchronization with binutils 2.23. Anyways the current situation is correct: the binutils header files shouldn't be included in the sdcc binary installation packages. Borut On 08. 05. 2013 14:57, Maarten Brock wrote: > Hi, > > I found another difference that I cannot explain. There were 4 files in > the previous installation (3.2.0) that are now gone, but I cannot find in > the Changelog that they were removed. I think they should not be there, so > the new version seems better. They also were not present in 3.1.0. > > C:\Programs\SDCC320\include\ansidecl.h > C:\Programs\SDCC320\include\bfd.h > C:\Programs\SDCC320\include\bfdlink.h > C:\Programs\SDCC320\include\symcat.h > > Maarten |
From: Patryk <pa...@wp...> - 2013-05-09 20:15:27
|
It still works :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patryk" <pa...@wp...> To: <sdc...@li...>; <sdc...@li...> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [sdcc-devel] SDCC 3.3.0 RC1 created > 8051 part installs fine on Win 98 machine, builds successfully my ~7kB > project. Not much changed in generated code, I'm about to verify if it > still > works. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Maarten Brock" <sou...@ds...> > To: <sdc...@li...>; <sdc...@li...> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 4:42 PM > Subject: [sdcc-devel] SDCC 3.3.0 RC1 created > > >> Hello SDCC friends, >> >> Today the first Release Candidate (RC1) for SDCC 3.3.0 was created and >> put >> online in our SourceForge File section. >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/sdcc/files/ >> >> If you have the time, please verify it and report back with the positive >> or negative results. >> >> Happy programming, >> Maarten Brock >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite >> It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production >> Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. >> Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2 >> _______________________________________________ >> sdcc-devel mailing list >> sdc...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite > It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production > Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2 > _______________________________________________ > sdcc-devel mailing list > sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel > |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2013-05-10 08:29:43
|
Hello Patryk, Thank you very much for testing and reporting back! Kind regards, Maarten Brock > It still works :-) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patryk" <pa...@wp...> > To: <sdc...@li...>; <sdc...@li...> > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:50 AM > Subject: Re: [sdcc-devel] SDCC 3.3.0 RC1 created > > >> 8051 part installs fine on Win 98 machine, builds successfully my ~7kB >> project. Not much changed in generated code, I'm about to verify if it >> still >> works. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Maarten Brock" <sou...@ds...> >> To: <sdc...@li...>; >> <sdc...@li...> >> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 4:42 PM >> Subject: [sdcc-devel] SDCC 3.3.0 RC1 created >> >> >>> Hello SDCC friends, >>> >>> Today the first Release Candidate (RC1) for SDCC 3.3.0 was created and >>> put >>> online in our SourceForge File section. >>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/sdcc/files/ >>> >>> If you have the time, please verify it and report back with the >>> positive >>> or negative results. >>> >>> Happy programming, >>> Maarten Brock >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite >>> It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production >>> Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. >>> Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sdcc-devel mailing list >>> sdc...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite >> It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production >> Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. >> Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2 >> _______________________________________________ >> sdcc-devel mailing list >> sdc...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book > "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and > their applications. This 200-page book is written by three acclaimed > leaders in the field. The early access version is available now. > Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/neotech_d2d_may > _______________________________________________ > sdcc-devel mailing list > sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel > |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2013-05-10 08:44:37
|
Hi again, >> Furthermore I still intend to update the sdas documentation as I >> added/modified it quite a lot, but documentation was not yet updated. >> Anyone else with documentation plans for the release? I have an updated version of asmlnk.txt now that I will commit soon. I have not updated the HTML version asxhtm.html. ASxxxx v5 has rearranged html docs with many files instead of one. And it even comes with a pdf nowadays. It seems the html and pdf versions are generated (from asmlnk.txt?), but I don't know how. I suggest to remove the outdated asxhtm.html file now and only keep asmlnk.txt. Maybe later we can add more types back in. Are there any objections? Maarten |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2013-05-10 10:55:30
|
On 10. 05. 2013 10:44, Maarten Brock wrote: > Hi again, > >>> Furthermore I still intend to update the sdas documentation as I >>> added/modified it quite a lot, but documentation was not yet updated. >>> Anyone else with documentation plans for the release? > I have an updated version of asmlnk.txt now that I will commit soon. I > have not updated the HTML version asxhtm.html. ASxxxx v5 has rearranged > html docs with many files instead of one. And it even comes with a pdf > nowadays. It seems the html and pdf versions are generated (from > asmlnk.txt?), but I don't know how. I suggest to remove the outdated > asxhtm.html file now and only keep asmlnk.txt. Maybe later we can add more > types back in. Are there any objections? I agree. It is a mess: actually the txt and html documents are from different ASXXXX versions: txt from 1.7 and html from 2.0. This probably made sense in the past, where gpasm actually came from different ASXXXX versions (see http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/index.php/SDCC_AS_and_LINK_history), but now they are heavily synchronized with ASXXXX v5.0, I also suspect that Alan Balwin is using a special tool to generate the documentation. Maybe we should ask him which tool he is using or how he generates the docs? Borut |