rekisum@xxxxxx wrote:
Hi,
I already put this in the FreeRTOS forum with no result so far:
I got hit by a very strange GCC/FreeRTOS problem.
In a task I check the return value of a function like this:
int ret;
if( xQueueReceive(QueueMain, &Event, portMAX_DELAY) == pdTRUE )
{
switch(Event.id)
{
case EV_KEY_MENU_OK:
ret = menu_descend();
if( ret != 0 )
{ . . . . .
.
.
.
Using this code the system hangs after returning from menu_descend()!
The program gets stuck in xQueueReceive() in an endless loop of xTaskResumeAll().
There is a while loop:
while( ( pxTCB = ( tskTCB * ) listGET_OWNER_OF_HEAD_ENTRY( ( ( xList * ) &xPendingReadyList ) ) ) != NULL )
As there is an portENTER_CRITICAL() in the beginning of that routine there
interrupts are disabled, the os tick is no longer called.
But, when I declare ret as volatile
volatile int ret;
the program runs as expected!
Looking at the assembler code shows:
Without volatile:
bl menu_descend
cmp r0, #0
beq .L123
With volatile:
bl menu_descend
str r0, [sp, #84]
ldr r3, [sp, #84]
cmp r3, #0
beq .L123
So it looks like that storing the return value on the stack
and using r3 for comparison against zero saves my program
from getting stuck.
From here I only can guess.
Maybe gcc tricks itself by the assumption that there lies a return value
of the function on stack, but optimisation uses r0 for handover directly instead,
and from there on the stack pointer is one position to low?
Or has it to do with register treatment of freertos, especially register r0?
I use freertos version 3.2 ( because thats what the project started with
and I'm not allowed to upgrade ;-)
It's a port for the STR7 ARM7 from ST.
gcc is arm-elf-gcc 4.2.2
optimization level is 2
All that really frightens me!
I must use optimization, at least for size, as the code got to big.
What goes wrong here?
__________________________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie SMS direkt vom Postfach aus - in alle deutschen und viele
ausländische Netze zum gleichen Preis!
https://produkte.web.de/webde_sms/sms
My guess is that you have an uninitialized variable somewhere [else],
and by making ret
a volatile, you just happen to see the desired results.
With what you've shown, r3 is now going to be 0 after your call, so is
the word at sp+84.
And perhaps, you'll see a different amount of stack space allocated in
this function -
all have the possibility of changing the "undefined" value of an
uninitialized variable.
