Nicole Hughes

Yes, sounds good. Do you know what release this might go into?

Let me try formatting that again: typedef struct xSTATIC_TIMER { void *pvDummy1; StaticListItem_t xDummy2; TickType_t xDummy3; UBaseType_t uxDummy4; void *pvDummy5; TaskFunction_t xDummy6; #if( configUSE_TRACE_FACILITY == 1 ) UBaseType_t uxDummy7; #endif #if( ( configSUPPORT_STATIC_ALLOCATION == 1 ) && (configSUPPORT_DYNAMIC_ALLOCATION == 1 ) ) uint8_t ucDummy8; #endif } StaticTimer_t;

Almost. It works with both memory models if you remove the pointer from pvDummy6. Like this: typedef struct xSTATIC_TIMER { void pvDummy1; StaticListItem_t xDummy2; TickType_t xDummy3; UBaseType_t uxDummy4; void pvDummy5; TaskFunction_t xDummy6; #if( configUSE_TRACE_FACILITY == 1 ) UBaseType_t uxDummy7; #endif #if( ( configSUPPORT_STATIC_ALLOCATION == 1 ) && (configSUPPORT_DYNAMIC_ALLOCATION == 1 ) ) uint8_t ucDummy8; #endif } StaticTimer_t; Is this something we can expect in a future release? I...

We are using the IAR MSP430X port. I figured out the problem, though. I am using the MEDIUM data model and in that model a void pointer is 2 bytes, but the function pointer TimerCallbackFunctiont pxCallbackFunction is 4 bytes. So, that is why the two structures weren't equal. I can switch to the Large model and both structures are equal and that fixes the issue. However, that is going to greatly increase the data size. Is there a plan to port the Timers code for MSP430X, so the Medium model can be...

Hi Richard. Thanks for the quick response. I did see that other post before I submitted mine. Unfortuanatley, setting configUSE_LIST_DATA_INTEGRITY_CHECK_BYTES to 0 doesn't resolve the issue. These static timer structures don't actually use the integrity check bytes. It looks to me like the reason the reason StaticTimer_t doesn't match XTIMER is that XTIMER contains a callback function and StaticTimer_t does not: TimerCallbackFunction_t pxCallbackFunction Let me know what you think. Nicole

Dummy StaticTimer_t size does not match Timer_t size