Hello,
I've built two arm-elf compilers with gcc-4.2.2, both configurations are the
same except build != host differs for mingw since we build both on Ubunutu
linux.
Mingw hosted canadian-cross:
Configured with: ../gcc-4.2.2/configure --target=arm-elf
--prefix=/proj/crossgcc/arm-elf-mingw --disable-nls --with-gnu-as
--with-gnu-ld --enable-languages=c,c++ --with-newlib
--with-headers=../newlib-1.17.0/newlib/libc/include --disable-shared
--disable-threads --disable-libssp --disable-__cxa_atexit
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --build=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
--host=i686-pc-mingw32 --enable-interwork --enable-multilib
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.2.2 (rt-labs rev.1728M)
Linux hosted:
Configured with: ../gcc-4.2.2/configure --target=arm-elf
--prefix=/proj/crossgcc/arm-elf --disable-nls --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld
--enable-languages=c,c++ --with-newlib
--with-headers=../newlib-1.17.0/newlib/libc/include --disable-shared
--disable-threads --disable-libssp --disable-__cxa_atexit
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --enable-interwork --enable-multilib
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.2.2 (rt-labs rev.1728M)
In our unit-tests (that passes for both variants) we have the following isr
that cause a difference in output, other functions differ as well. I've
noticed that static variables and functions seem to be used when it appears.
static void isr1 (void * arg)
{
/* Clear high priority IRQ */
pSIC->soft_clear = BIT(0);
if (isr0run == 1)
isrOutOfOrder = 1;
isr1run = 1;
}
I've used "arm-elf-objdump -d isr.o > dump" -> to produce the following.
Mingw output :
Disassembly of section .text.isr1:
00000000 <isr1>:
0: 23ca movs r3, #202
2: 061b lsls r3, r3, #24
4: 2201 movs r2, #1
6: 615a str r2, [r3, #20]
8: 4b04 ldr r3, [pc, #16] (1c <isr1+0x1c>)
a: 681b ldr r3, [r3, #0]
c: 2b01 cmp r3, #1
e: d101 bne.n 14 <isr1+0x14>
10: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] (20 <isr1+0x20>)
12: 601a str r2, [r3, #0]
14: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] (24 <isr1+0x24>)
16: 601a str r2, [r3, #0]
18: 4770 bx lr
1a: 46c0 nop (mov r8, r8)
...
Linux output :
Disassembly of section .text.isr1:
00000000 <isr1>:
0: 4b05 ldr r3, [pc, #20] (18 <isr1+0x18>)
2: 2201 movs r2, #1
4: 615a str r2, [r3, #20]
6: 4b05 ldr r3, [pc, #20] (1c <isr1+0x1c>)
8: 681b ldr r3, [r3, #0]
a: 2b01 cmp r3, #1
c: d101 bne.n 12 <isr1+0x12>
e: 4b04 ldr r3, [pc, #16] (20 <isr1+0x20>)
10: 601a str r2, [r3, #0]
12: 4b04 ldr r3, [pc, #16] (24 <isr1+0x24>)
14: 601a str r2, [r3, #0]
16: 4770 bx lr
18: ca000000 .word 0xca000000
...
Is there a sane explanation why they differ? When compiling without Os the
output is the same. I would prefer that they didn't differ even though
optimizing is used.
Regards Andreas
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3983 (20090402) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3984 (20090402) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
