--- Begin Message ---
Greetings Richard,
Many thanks for finding the time to reply!
However I am still puzzled. I also had thought at one point that the
pre-processor just didn't have the variable address assignment
(&varName) information available to do the calculation at the time
during the processing. But then I noticed that part of the calculation
was not being done within the STM32 ASM code concluding that the
&varName calculation must have been done by the pre-processor. For
confirmation I decided to do a test by doing the bitBand address
calculation without the (*(volatile unsigned int *) pointer cast as follows:
RAMBBTEST(varName,bit) (uint32_t)&varName-SRAM_BASE*32+4*bit+SRAM_BB_BASE
#define HEARTBEAT_500MS_BBFLG RAMBBTEST(tick_500mS_Flags,1)
I then inserted a test statement that would simply load the
resulting constant and found the result to be correct. The debugger
shows that the entire calculation was done by the pre-processor as the C
statement just generates a pair of load and store instructions in the
ASM code.
uint32_t test1 = HEARTBEAT_500MS_BBFLG;
4B16 ldr r3, [pc, #0x058]
603B str r3, [r7, #0x00]
The test1 variable result shown by the debugger is 0x22005304 which
is the correct bitBand target address.
I also noticed by accident, whilst I was trying several unacceptable
variations of syntax, that the compiler would generate an error message
that showed the correct calculation result. It was apparent, as I
understand it, that the value was correctly calculated even before the
linker was called.
It appears the problem does not appear until the (*(volatile
unsigned int *) pointer cast is added.
I finally concluded that I must be overloading the pre-processor
somehow and now wonder if there is a way to work around it.
Again I wish to thank you for taking the time to reply! I hope this
additional info will shed some new light on the nature of the problem.
Best Regards,
Tom Alldread
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 10:14 -0700, Thomas M. Alldread wrote:
Greetings:
I would like to learn a macro technique for the
address assignment of single bit variables to the
bitBand region of an ARM Cortex M3 MPU.
I wrote the following macro for defining and accessing
single bit semaphore variables:
#define SRBB(varName, bit) (*((volatile unsigned int *)\
((((uint32_t)&varName - SRAM_BASE)*32)+(bit*4)+SRAM_BB_BASE)))
where:
&varName = 0x20000298 // for this example
bit = 1 // for this example
SRAM_BASE = 0x20000000 // mem map constant
SRAM_BB_BASE = 0x22000000 // mem map constant
For a reference I pre-calculated the bitBand address
and took a look at the associated ASM steps. As shown in
example 1 the GCC compiler matched the textbook
efficiency of 3 ASM instructions for setting the bit.
....
1) Example with manually calculated bitBand address:
(*((volatile unsigned int *)0x22005304)) = (uint16_t)1;;
4A20 ldr r2, [pc, #0x080]
F04F0301 mov.w r3, #0x00000001
6013 str r3, [r2, #0x00]
....
I then decided to generate the bitBand address with my
macro and discovered that it took 7 instruction cycles to
set the bit as some of the address arithmetic was assigned
by GCC to the STM32 processor.
....
2)Example that uses the macro:
HEARTBEAT_500MS_BBFLG = 1;
4B22 ldr r3, [pc, #0x088]
EA4F1343 mov.w r3, r3, lsl #0x05
F1035308 add.w r3, r3, #0x22000000
F1030304 add.w r3, r3, #0x00000004
461A mov r2, r3
F04F0301 mov.w r3, #0x00000001
6013 str r3, [r2, #0x00]
....
It appears the compiler pre calculates the 0x298 byte
offset and bit offsets. Then the 32 times multiplication
and offset sum steps are passed to the STM32.
I wonder if someone here knows why the GCC
pre-processor does not complete my macro calculation?
If so please advise me or point me to information that
describes what I need to change so that the GCC
pre-processor will complete the macro calculation
without adding STM32 instructions.
Thanks in advance for any help!
I'm afraid there isn't much that can be done about this without adding
explicit bit-band support to the compiler (a lot of work). The problem
is at least in part a representational limit of object files.
The compiler does not know where your variable will eventually be placed
(the linker is the only thing that will know that). So it can't
simplify your expression statically. Further, it can't represent the
entire expression as a relocation because they cannot get this
complicated (being limited essentially to a symbol plus a simple
constant offset). So the compiler has to leave your expression pretty
much as you've written it.
R.
--
Best Regards,
Tom Alldread
tmall@xxxxxxxxx
--- End Message ---
