avr-gcc-list
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] May avr-gcc emit EIJMP/EICALL?


From: Erik Christiansen
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] May avr-gcc emit EIJMP/EICALL?
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:54:38 +1100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On 15.10.11 12:50, Jan Waclawek wrote:
> >Jan's work does use EIND.
> 
> Just making this one thing straight - it's NOT my work, I am not
> capable of doing not even the slightest change in avr-gcc.

Please accept my sincere apologies. In Message-ID: <address@hidden>
I didn't spot the ">>" (not ">"), with missing second attribution line: >>>

Jan Waclawek schrieb:
>> If I understand correctly, my changes in
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/config/avr/libgcc.S?r1=179760&r2=179759&pathrev=179760
>> are no good and I should rework the patch to use EI*, and instead of PUSH
>> zero_reg there should either a push of EIND or, if no RET is used to indirect
>> jump, EIJMP instead if IJMP?
>
<<< (Quoted here without additional ">")

With increasingly weird MUA behaviour out there these days, it's too
easy to be tricked. Perhaps it is because that post of yours didn't make
it to the list, that visible attribution does not show Johann there.

> I am only a mere user who happens to work on a >128kB binary (cca 3
> man-year, btw.), that's why I am interested. However, I believe this
> kind of applications is not appropriate for AVRs, and that the
> existing support for what we discuss here is sufficient.
> 
> The extended indirect stuff in gcc is already there for a couple of
> years. Johann was just trying to clean it up, as it appears it is not
> needed at the present state of affairs.

After reading the thread again, I see that that's how things began.
Though in Message-ID: <address@hidden>, eschewing EIND in
favour of trampolines seems to have been abandoned, and EIJMP is back in
the game. (Ah, that's in fact the text quoted above.)

On this subthread, we've been busy trying to catch up with the state of
the art, and where it might head. That's not clear on the main thread,
either.

Erik

-- 
Abbott's Admonitions:
   (1) If you have to ask, you're not entitled to know.
   (2) If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question.
        - Charles Abbot, dean, University of Virginia




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]