Re: [ECOS] ecos-3.0 current stm32 bug?

[Philipp Meier <pme.neratec@gmx.ch>]

0x8040025 is only the entry in the hal_vsr_table[11] (seems to always be 
the real address + 1). I.e.

(gdb) print /fx hal_vsr_table[11]
$6 = 0x8040025
(gdb) print hal_switch_state_vsr
$4 = {<text variable, no debug info>} 0x8040024 <hal_switch_state_vsr>

Philipp

On 08/25/2011 11:33 AM, Christophe Coutand wrote:
> Try to word align hal_switch_state_vsr (currently you have 0x8040025) and see what happens. Also can you post the dissembled version to understand why hal_switch_state_vsr is placed like that.
>
> Christophe
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philipp Meier [mailto:pme.neratec@gmx.ch]
>> Sent: 25. august 2011 10:49
>> To: Christophe Coutand; ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org
>> Subject: Re: RE: RE: [ECOS] ecos-3.0 current stm32 bug?
>>
>> Hello Christophe
>>
>> it is the SWI instruction ("svc 0" in disassem code) that triggers the
>> exception (therefore breakpoint in hal_switch_state_vsr is never
>> reached).
>>
>> Where does the SWI instruction get's it's information about where to
>> jump to? Is it the hal_vsr_table (located at 0x20000000)? In entry 11 I
>> have 0x8040025 which is the address for hal_switch_state_vsr - and yet
>> it does not jumps to 0x8040025 but instead to 0x8040042
>> (hal_default_exception_vsr).
>>
>> Any idea about the reason for this behaviour?
>>
>> Cheers Philipp
>>
>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>> Datum: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:40:02 -0700
>>> Von: "Christophe Coutand"<ccoutand@stmi.com>
>>> An: "Philipp Meier"<pme.neratec@gmx.ch>, ecos-
>> discuss@ecos.sourceware.org
>>> Betreff: RE: RE: [ECOS] ecos-3.0 current stm32 bug?
>>> What about setting a breakpoint in hal_switch_state_vsr? Is it the
>> SWI
>>> instruction that triggers the exception or is it the execution of the
>>> hal_switch_state_vsr routine?
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org [mailto:ecos-discuss-
>>>> owner@ecos.sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Meier
>>>> Sent: 24. august 2011 16:58
>>>> To: ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org
>>>> Subject: Re: RE: [ECOS] ecos-3.0 current stm32 bug?
>>>>
>>>> Hello Christophe,
>>>>
>>>> Yes - both are ROM startup type. The bootloader without offset
>> (i.e.
>>>> offset 0x0), the application with offset 0x40000.
>>>>
>>>> In the bootloader elf file hal_vsr_table is 20000000 and the same
>> is
>>>> true for the application.
>>>>
>>>> GDB debug output when debugging the startup of the application:
>>>>
>>>> Bad case (Linux built bootloader):
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>> (gdb) print /fx hal_vsr_table
>>>> $1 = {0x441c4c08, 0x61232301, 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040043,
>>>> 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040043,
>>>>    0x8040043, 0x8040025, 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040089, 0x8040075
>>>> <repeats 61 times>}
>>>> (gdb) print /fx&hal_vsr_table
>>>> $2 = 0x20000000
>>>>
>>>> Good case (Cygwin built bootloader):
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>> (gdb) print /fx hal_vsr_table
>>>> $1 = {0x4024f8df, 0xf04f4d09, 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040043,
>>>> 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040043,
>>>>    0x8040043, 0x8040025, 0x8040043, 0x8040043, 0x8040089, 0x8040075
>>>> <repeats 61 times>}
>>>> (gdb) print /fx&hal_vsr_table
>>>> $2 = 0x20000000
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Philipp
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>>>> Datum: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:22:53 -0700
>>>>> Von: "Christophe Coutand"<ccoutand@stmi.com>
>>>>> An: "Philipp Meier"<pme.neratec@gmx.ch>, "ecos discuss"<ecos-
>>>> ...


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss