AW: AW:[Xenomai-help] undefinedreference __xnarch_xchg_called_with_bad_pointer

AW: AW:[Xenomai-help] undefinedreference __xnarch_xchg_called_with_bad_pointer

[Roderik_Wildenburg]

Any idea why I don´t get this error when compiling the native examples. Isn´t atomic.h included with these examples too ? 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: xenomai-help-bounces@domain.hid
> [mailto:xenomai-help-bounces@domain.hid] Im Auftrag von Heikki Lindholm
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2006 20:06
> An: Philippe Gerum
> Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org
> Betreff: Re: AW:[Xenomai-help] undefinedreference 
> __xnarch_xchg_called_with_bad_pointer
> 
> Philippe Gerum kirjoitti:
> > Heikki Lindholm wrote:
> > 
> >> Uh. I guess the compiler isn't killing the *_bad_pointer 
> function as 
> >> dead code when debug is enabled (although it is dead-code.)
> > 
> > 
> > The optimizer is disabled by --enable-debug so that we don't get 
> > strange jumps while tracing with GDB, I guess that's why 
> the dead code 
> > is not eliminated. What about just killing this check, 
> since the same 
> > code is already validated when compiling it as a kernel module? 
> > (except asm-uvm/system.h, but that's not important).
> 
> Yep. That seems like the way to go. I don't see much to gain 
> from the check. Of course, paranoid way would be to add the 
> __bad_ptr() function with abort() or something inside. Quick 
> patch attached for the former case.
> 
> - hl
> 

Re: AW: AW:[Xenomai-help] undefinedreference __xnarch_xchg_called_with_bad_pointer

[Philippe Gerum]

Roderik_Wildenburg@domain.hid wrote:
> Any idea why I don´t get this error when compiling the native examples. Isn´t atomic.h included with these examples too ? 

Included yes, but not actually used.

> 
> 
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: xenomai-help-bounces@domain.hid
>>[mailto:xenomai-help-bounces@domain.hid] Im Auftrag von Heikki Lindholm
>>Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2006 20:06
>>An: Philippe Gerum
>>Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org
>>Betreff: Re: AW:[Xenomai-help] undefinedreference 
>>__xnarch_xchg_called_with_bad_pointer
>>
>>Philippe Gerum kirjoitti:
>>
>>>Heikki Lindholm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Uh. I guess the compiler isn't killing the *_bad_pointer 
>>
>>function as 
>>
>>>>dead code when debug is enabled (although it is dead-code.)
>>>
>>>
>>>The optimizer is disabled by --enable-debug so that we don't get 
>>>strange jumps while tracing with GDB, I guess that's why 
>>
>>the dead code 
>>
>>>is not eliminated. What about just killing this check, 
>>
>>since the same 
>>
>>>code is already validated when compiling it as a kernel module? 
>>>(except asm-uvm/system.h, but that's not important).
>>
>>Yep. That seems like the way to go. I don't see much to gain 
>>from the check. Of course, paranoid way would be to add the 
>>__bad_ptr() function with abort() or something inside. Quick 
>>patch attached for the former case.
>>
>>- hl
>>
> 
> 


-- 

Philippe.