Hi, > To my untrained eye, this looks a little like a bug. In > v850/lib1funcs.asm, .L_return_interrupt should IMHO be in the > .call_table_text section, not .text. (Would you like to try making the > change? It's still line 1459 in 3.4.4) We might be able to sneak in a > fix before the experts arrive with more sage advice. ;-)
great, thanks for that hint, i just uncommented the ".text" in line 1459 in lib1funcs.asm (for gcc-3.4.4). Now the code links fine. I wonder now how to proceed, do i need to report this stuff officially somewhere? I also got no answer to my mail from saturday morning, subject line "-mwarn-signed-overflow". I had to do that change to make gcc-3.4.4 compile. Best regards, Torsten. > > That said, using v850e-gcc 3.3, I found the easiest way to make all the > callt pain go away was to turn off compiler optimisation. (Although I > only have a fortnight's experience with the v850, so far it seems that > v850e-gcc 3.3 defaults to conventional push/pop sequences, in lieu of > the callt size optimisation. So there is no .call_table_data to > complicate initial attempts to get things to compile, if optimisation is > turned off. Version 3.4.4 may do the same.) > > Adding your source lines to my first chunk of test code generated what was > expected: > > 00402000 <_irq_nmi>: > 402000: 5c 1a add -4, sp > 402002: 63 ef 01 00 st.w r29, 0[sp] > 402006: 03 e8 mov sp, r29 > 402008: 1d 18 mov r29, sp > 40200a: 23 ef 01 00 ld.w 0[sp],r29 > 40200e: 44 1a add 4, sp > 402010: 7f 00 jmp [lp] > > (And no errors. :-) > > > When i don't use -mv850e, but use -mv850, all works fine. > > IIUC that's because mv850 doesn't have the callt instruction, so the > problematic optimisation is not invoked. > > I still don't fully grok the callt stuff either, so best of luck. > > hth, > Erik
