Modifying code

rb26dett · Post by **rb26dett** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:25 am

you could always code it the dirty way in the mean time before this is resolved by duplicating the code...

just a thought.

Post by **jsmcortina** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:27 pm

Have you examined the assembly output to see what it is doing?

James

Keithg · Post by **Keithg** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:00 pm

Not to waste your time, but I did not know we could do that... How do we see that code? I just tried to look at the *.o files and they are binary. Is there a way of seeing the ASM. I am compiling the code using the 'make.bat ' file with the installed ms2compiler.zip package. The only files created in the directory I am using are the *.o files and the *.s19 when I double click on make.bat.

KeithG

On 8/24/07, jsmcortina wrote:

Have you examined the assembly output to see what it is doing?

James

Post by **jsmcortina** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:07 pm

I checked the assembly output generated on my PC and it is doing what you asked it to do.

James

rb26dett · Post by **rb26dett** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:36 pm

do a -S in there somewhere and it wont go past making the assembly code.

fred.

edit : those last 2 posts appeared in reverse order in my email...

Post by **jsmcortina** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:18 pm

Ah yes... without using cygwin the "objdump" command doesn't work (for some reason) so the assembler output isn't created.
See the difference between Makefile and Makefile.DOS

Here's a snippet from the ms2_extra.dmp with the original code:

Code: Select all

000fc410 <LSM82>:
	    } else {
		if (outpc.tps > (int)flash5.pwmidle_tps_thresh) {
   fc410:	fc 39 c5    	ldd	39c5 <outpc>
   fc413:	bc 44 29    	cpd	4429 <flash5>
   fc416:	2f 2c       	ble	fc444 <LSM93>

000fc418 <LSM83>:
		    if (outpc.rpm > rpm_thresh) {
   fc418:	bd 39 b3    	cpy	39b3 <outpc>
   fc41b:	24 0d       	bcc	fc42a <LSM87>

000fc41d <LSM84>:
			DISABLE_INTERRUPTS;
   fc41d:	14 10       	sei

000fc41f <LSM85>:
			IACmotor_pos = flash5.pwmidle_closed_duty;
   fc41f:	f6 44 24    	ldab	4424 <flash5>
   fc422:	79 39 a4    	clr	39a4 <IACmotor_pos>
   fc425:	7b 39 a5    	stab	39a5 <IACmotor_pos>

000fc428 <LSM86>:
			ENABLE_INTERRUPTS;
   fc428:	10 ef       	cli

000fc42a <LSM87>:
		    }
		    if (IACmotor_reset == 0) {

James

Post by **jsmcortina** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:27 pm

For debugging without BDM, use outpc.statusXXX in the code and display them in Megatune.
e.g. set outpc.status3 to zero normally and then set it to 1 if that section of code executes. That allows you to confirm what part of your code is malfunctioning. I think that you are unexpectedly executing some of the rest of the code due to that "OR" operation.

James

pettaw · Post by **pettaw** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:33 am

I tried compiling the code and I get a s.19 file that's smaller than the original, using the same source code. I'm using WindowsXP and the makefile.DOS. Will I need to use cygwin to make it compile correctly?

Post by **jsmcortina** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:36 am

If I recall correctly, the "simplified gcc" package has a different release of the compiler (or different options) to the one Ken is using to build the code. I wouldn't be unduly worried about it.

James

Keithg · Post by **Keithg** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:45 am

It loads and works fine.

KeithG

Keithg · Post by **Keithg** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 3:15 pm

Ken/James,

I have been having troubles compiling the s19. Most every time I make an edit, it will load, but will generally lock up MT as I am cranking. I have noticed that when I use make.bat that the file size is off from the 'shipping' version by about 10k. I asked Shawn to compile it from Cygwin and he gets the same file size as the shipping version. I do not know if it is the compiler that is the problem, or the options set in the makefile.DOS, or what, but there seems to be a discrepancy. Is this something to worry about?

KeithG

Xtatic · Post by **Xtatic** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:36 pm

Keith,

Depending on the nature of your edits, all kinds of undesirable things might be happening with the firmware.
Also, as James mentioned earlier, the difference in size of resulting binaries is of minor importance.

For others planning to modify the code while using cygwin, here is the link where i got my ported gcc compiler for the hcs12 cpu: (download the one for windows and put the stuff that's in /usr inside the zip, into the cygwin's /usr)

http://www.gnu.org/software/m68hc11/m68 ... nload.html

It had compiled the original code just fine (no errors) but i have not yet tested it running on the hardware.

Will update with progress.
btw, i plan to play around with the wheel decoder code

Keithg · Post by **Keithg** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:08 pm

All that I know is that, when I started using cygwin, all my problems went away.

KeithG

Post by **muythaibxr** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:02 pm

That's what we're using, so that makes sense.

Ken

mops · Post by **mops** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:01 pm

is it still possible to compile in codewarrior ? which version/addons do i need ?

I like my proper development UI with code highlighting, bracket tracking, line numbers, and definitely advanced debuggers and stuff. I just want to play around and 'get my feet wet' with ms2 programming....

6040solder · Post by **6040solder** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:28 am

not as it stands because of the way inline asm is handled and possibly other things too.

I like my proper development UI with code highlighting, bracket tracking, line numbers, and definitely advanced debuggers and stuff.

try eclipse or similar, it supports gcc development.

EDIT: Here's a good read on dev tools, of a different kind:

http://tools.diyefi.org
http://forum.diyefi.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=547
http://forum.diyefi.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=1103
http://forum.diyefi.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=1683
http://forum.diyefi.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=1689
http://forum.diyefi.org/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=1381

Post by **muythaibxr** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:04 am

As 0640solder says, we don't support codewarrior, and have not since we went over the 32k limit that the free CW supports; that means pretty much since about 2 weeks after James and I started working on ms2/extra.

Ken

Xtatic · Post by **Xtatic** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:27 pm

mops wrote:I like my proper development UI ....

vim/gvim, ctags, gdb, grep, and other command line tools can go a looong way. The trick is to get used to it.

i also used to be a "visual developer" and prefered clicking around.

Post by **jsmcortina** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:25 pm

We found and fixed a bug in the DOS Makefile that was breaking code compiled under DOS. The Makefile.DOS in the latest 20071104 beta should be working correctly.

James