Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Fault is not evident in simu, which appears to work fine still.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:05
Fault was first noted on stock '64 chip radio -- not V4.
But V4 is worse -- the system boot up but starts spewing random characters all
over the screen -- just sitting in main views.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:07
r1151 is OK. Seems to be the changes made in r1152 causing the problem.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:11
No -- r1152 is OK. Fault appears at r1153. Confirmed.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:13
Hmmm. Looked through all DIFFs for r1153 but can't see anything that would
cause this. :/
Tested r1153 on simu (PCB=STD). No fault observed.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:21
Something is going wring with the pointer her (lcd.cpp)
putsStrIdx(x, y, PSTR("MODEL"), id+1, att|LEADING0);
The screen displays only " 03", instead of "MODEL03" before crashing.
Must be some compiler issue to do with pgmspace pointers again
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:29
Very strange. Somehow, BSS flag is being set in function call chain from
putsModelName
putsModelName(4*FW, y, name, k, 0); <-- att is clearly 0
putsStrIdx(x, y, PSTR("MODEL"), id+1, att|LEADING0); <-- BSS flag is NOT set.
CRASH though.
putsStrIdx(x, y, PSTR("MODEL"), id+1, att|LEADING0 &~BSS); <-- No crash. All
works.
Something must be wrong with LEADING0 flag?!? :/ Huh?
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:54
Yes -- when I add &BSS, LEADING0 is dropped as well (MODE3 instead of MODEL03
appears). There is a flag bit conflict.
I best leave this one to you now Bertrand.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:56
Oh I see the problem. BSS and ZCHAR were intended only for 'puts', while
LEADING0, etc were intended only for outdez. We are now mixing both functions.
DOH.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 4:40
Changed to low priority, since I have a reasonable patch installed now.
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 7:46
Original comment by gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 7:46
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 7:58
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
gru...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2011 at 1:04