From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22556 invoked by alias); 25 Aug 2011 12:12:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 22545 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Aug 2011 12:12:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,TW_BJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lon1-post-1.mail.demon.net (HELO lon1-post-1.mail.demon.net) (195.173.77.148) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:12:17 +0000 Received: from calivar.demon.co.uk ([83.104.54.243] helo=calivar.com) by lon1-post-1.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) id 1QwYn9-00014m-ZB for ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:12:16 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.1] (daikon.calivar.com [10.0.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by calivar.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC88719F767 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:12:14 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4E563C1E.7030406@calivar.com> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:12:00 -0000 From: Nick Garnett User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 SUSE/3.1.11 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org References: <20110824103404.51600@gmx.net> <20110824141051.115980@gmx.net> <20110824145744.116000@gmx.net> <20110825084845.184240@gmx.net> <4E5625FC.2030803@calivar.com> <4E563112.9060608@gmx.ch> In-Reply-To: <4E563112.9060608@gmx.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] ecos-3.0 current stm32 bug? X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 > Sound logic but: > Why would the code built under cygwin run (same architecture with > bootloader and application) but not work when built under Linux? On both > OS I use the same version of the arm-eabi tools. On both OS I use the > same ecos library (ecos-3.0) and the same source code for > bootloader/application. > > Any idea about what would make the difference? That is less easy to answer. In theory your builds should produce similar, if not identical, executables. Certainly as far as the initialization code is concerned. Something you could try is to use arm-eabi-objdump with the -d option to disassemble the ELF files. Then compare the resulting outputs, even run them through diff. Any differences between the files might give a clue as to what is going wrong. Concentrate in particular on hal_reset_vsr, since this is the most likely site of any problem. -- Nick Garnett eCos Kernel Architect eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com The eCos experts Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571 Registered in England and Wales: Reg No: 4422071 -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss