From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-03-11 19:14:20
|
Bugs item #1912127, was opened at 2008-03-11 14:14 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1912127&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: linker Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: StephanieH (stephhouse) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: debug records generation Initial Comment: I have an xdata array that I have defined as a global at the top of my C file as the example shows below: //xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQPulse = { 1, {1}} ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQAcq ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQfree = { 8, {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}} ; pdata PROCESS pPulseActif ; xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; Please note that I have 2 lines with the same syntax and one is commented out. When I build this file, pTable's address is 0x50. If I uncomment out the first line and comment out the second declaration as follows: xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQPulse = { 1, {1}} ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQAcq ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQfree = { 8, {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}} ; pdata PROCESS pPulseActif ; //xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; pTable's address changes to 0x59. When I process the debug records I noticed that each time I commit/uncomment out the lines, the old debug records from previous compilations are still generated and from what I can tell, the last record corresponds to the most recent build. Is that correct and why do you keep the old debug records? The project I am using is too big to attach. Thanks! ste...@si... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1912127&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-04-22 12:13:51
|
Bugs item #1912127, was opened at 2008-03-11 20:14 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by maartenbrock You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1912127&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: linker >Group: unreproducable >Status: Pending >Resolution: Rejected Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: StephanieH (stephhouse) >Assigned to: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Summary: debug records generation Initial Comment: I have an xdata array that I have defined as a global at the top of my C file as the example shows below: //xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQPulse = { 1, {1}} ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQAcq ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQfree = { 8, {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}} ; pdata PROCESS pPulseActif ; xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; Please note that I have 2 lines with the same syntax and one is commented out. When I build this file, pTable's address is 0x50. If I uncomment out the first line and comment out the second declaration as follows: xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQPulse = { 1, {1}} ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQAcq ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQfree = { 8, {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}} ; pdata PROCESS pPulseActif ; //xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; pTable's address changes to 0x59. When I process the debug records I noticed that each time I commit/uncomment out the lines, the old debug records from previous compilations are still generated and from what I can tell, the last record corresponds to the most recent build. Is that correct and why do you keep the old debug records? The project I am using is too big to attach. Thanks! ste...@si... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2008-04-22 14:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 Originator: NO Hi Stephanie, I cannot reproduce this problem. I invented some struct for PROCESSQueue because you did not provide it. But even then I don't see this problem. Are you referring to the info in the OMF file or the CDB file? SDCC regenerates both files from scratch and never 'keeps' anything from previous runs. Are you sure you do not open the files too soon or found a bug/feature in cache handling of the OS? I've set this pending. It will automatically reopen if you add a new comment unless you close it instead. Without response it will automatically close after a month. Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1912127&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-05-23 02:20:18
|
Bugs item #1912127, was opened at 2008-03-11 12:14 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1912127&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: linker Group: unreproducable >Status: Closed Resolution: Rejected Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: StephanieH (stephhouse) Assigned to: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Summary: debug records generation Initial Comment: I have an xdata array that I have defined as a global at the top of my C file as the example shows below: //xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQPulse = { 1, {1}} ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQAcq ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQfree = { 8, {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}} ; pdata PROCESS pPulseActif ; xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; Please note that I have 2 lines with the same syntax and one is commented out. When I build this file, pTable's address is 0x50. If I uncomment out the first line and comment out the second declaration as follows: xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQPulse = { 1, {1}} ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQAcq ; xdata PROCESSQueue pQfree = { 8, {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}} ; pdata PROCESS pPulseActif ; //xdata PROCESS pTable[N_MAX_PROCESS] ; pTable's address changes to 0x59. When I process the debug records I noticed that each time I commit/uncomment out the lines, the old debug records from previous compilations are still generated and from what I can tell, the last record corresponds to the most recent build. Is that correct and why do you keep the old debug records? The project I am using is too big to attach. Thanks! ste...@si... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: SourceForge Robot (sf-robot) Date: 2008-05-22 19:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1312539 Originator: NO This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter did not respond within 30 days (the time period specified by the administrator of this Tracker). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2008-04-22 05:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 Originator: NO Hi Stephanie, I cannot reproduce this problem. I invented some struct for PROCESSQueue because you did not provide it. But even then I don't see this problem. Are you referring to the info in the OMF file or the CDB file? SDCC regenerates both files from scratch and never 'keeps' anything from previous runs. Are you sure you do not open the files too soon or found a bug/feature in cache handling of the OS? I've set this pending. It will automatically reopen if you add a new comment unless you close it instead. Without response it will automatically close after a month. Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1912127&group_id=599 |