On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 2:33 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote:
>> +static const char* _exception_class_to_string( uint16_t exception_class )
>> +{
>> + switch (exception_class)
>> + {
>> + case 0b000001: return "Trapped WFI or WFE instruction";
>> + case 0b000011: return "Trapped MCR or MRC access with (coproc==0b1111)";
>> + case 0b000100: return "Trapped MCRR or MRRC access with (coproc==0b1111)";
>> + case 0b000101: return "Trapped MCR or MRC access with (coproc==0b1110)";
>> + case 0b000110: return "Trapped LDC or STC access";
>> + case 0b001100: return "Trapped MRRC access with (coproc==0b1110)";
>> + case 0b001110: return "Illegal Execution state";
>> + case 0b011000: return "Trapped MSR, MRS, or System instruction";
>> + case 0b100000: return "Instruction Abort from a lower Exception level";
>> + case 0b100001: return "Instruction Abort taken without a change in
>> Exception "
>> + "level";
>> + case 0b100010: return "PC alignment fault";
>> + case 0b100100: return "Data Abort from a lower Exception level";
>> + case 0b100101: return "Data Abort taken without a change in Exception
>> level";
>> + case 0b100110: return "SP alignment fault";
>> + case 0b110000: return "Breakpoint exception from a lower Exception level";
>> + case 0b110001: return "Breakpoint exception taken without a change in "
>> + "Exception level";
>> + case 0b110010: return "Software Step exception from a lower Exception
>> level";
>> + case 0b110011: return "Software Step exception taken without a change in "
>> + "Exception level";
>> + case 0b110100: return "Watchpoint exception from a lower Exception level";
>> + case 0b110101: return "Watchpoint exception taken without a change in "
>> + "Exception level";
>> + case 0b111000: return "BKPT instruction execution in AArch32 state";
>> + case 0b111100: return "BRK instruction execution in AArch64 state";
>
>
> Before someone else asks...
>
> (1) Are binary constants standard C? The stackover flow discussion I found
> says they are a GNU extension which puts them off-limits.
No, it doesn't look like they are. Darn. I'll switch to hex.
> (2). These appear to be 6 bits and there is nothing ensuring only those six
> bits are set before the switch. Is there a chance other bits could be set
> messing up this switch?
Currently, no, there is no chance other bits could be set. This function is
only called from one place, and the argument is bitwise AND-ed with 0x3f before
being passed in.
>> +static void _binary_sprintf(
>> + char *s,
>> + size_t maxlen,
>> + uint32_t num_bits,
>> + uint32_t value
>> +)
>> +{
>> + string_context sctx = {
>> + .s = s,
>> + .n = maxlen
>> + };
>> + uint32_t mask = 1<<(num_bits-1);
>> + int cx = 0;
>> +
>> + while ( mask != 0 ) {
>> + cx += _IO_Printf(put_char, &sctx, "%d", (value & mask ? 1 : 0));
>> + //cx += snprintf(s + cx, maxlen - cx, "%d", (value&mask ? 1 : 0));
>
>
> Commented out.
Will fix.
Alex
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
