[sdcc-devel] [ sdcc-Bugs-3424436 ] --max-allocs-per-node problem 4

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Bugs item #3424436, was opened at 2011-10-16 11:45
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by spth
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=3424436&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: z80 port
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Woody (woody1234)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: --max-allocs-per-node problem 4

Initial Comment:
In attached protocol.c, the function SipCallStep1() was compiled correctly with command line "C:\SDCC\BIN\sdcc protocol.c -mz80 -c --std-c99 --max-allocs-per-node 9521 --codeseg CODE5", but generated error result when using --max-allocs-per-node 9522.
C:\sdcc\src>..\bin\sdcc -v
SDCC : mcs51/gbz80/z80/z180/r2k/ds390/pic16/pic14/TININative/ds400/hc08 3.0.6 #6969 (Oct 16 2011) (MINGW32)
The interesting thing is, the was exactly the same function which went wrong with bug 3122620.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2012-01-16 08:18

Message:
Any news on this bug or how to reproduce it in current sdcc?

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Woody (woody1234)
Date: 2011-12-18 07:20

Message:
I tried #7110, seems that there is a new bug which caused all my number
string reversed, for example, IP  address 192.168.1.1 becomes 291.861.1.1,
SIP port 5060 becomes 0605. So I can not go on to test if the original bug
was fixed or not.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2011-12-18 03:48

Message:
Could you please
1) Check if this problem still occours in current sdcc, with the old
--max-allocs-per-node or different ones
2) State which error you encounter (compilation fails, wrong result in a
specific place or wrong code generated for specific line)

Philipp

P.S.: I just tried and could not reproduce this using sdcc 3.1.1 #7110 on
Debian GNU/Linux. However the bug probably is still present in the Windows
build.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Woody (woody1234)
Date: 2011-10-18 08:35

Message:
I replaced with #6876 sdcc.exe, same problem as #6969
SDCC : mcs51/gbz80/z80/z180/r2k/ds390/pic16/pic14/TININative/ds400/hc08
3.0.6 
#6976 (Oct 18 2011) (MINGW32)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Woody (woody1234)
Date: 2011-10-18 08:28

Message:
Only replace sdcc.exe will generate the problem, my previous version is:
SDCC : mcs51/gbz80/z80/ds390/pic16/pic14/TININative/ds400/hc08 3.0.1 #6078
(Dec  7 2010) (MINGW32)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Woody (woody1234)
Date: 2011-10-18 08:16

Message:
I have uploaded the working protocol_9521.asm and none-working
protocol_9522.asm. I only used sdcc.exe, sdcpp.exe, sdasz80.exe and
sdld.exe, is there anything I missed?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2011-10-18 06:11

Message:
I cannot reproduce this. I've tried sdcc revision #6969 and an earlier and
current version.
For all of them the generated code is identical for --max-allocs-per-node
9521 vs. 9522.
I used Debian GNU/Linux, compiled sdcc from source.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Woody (woody1234)
Date: 2011-10-16 11:48

Message:
The interesting thing is, the function SipCallStep1() was exactly the same
function which went wrong with bug 3122620.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=3424436&group_id=599