From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:21:50 -0800 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] no-brainer issue found, but not solved From: Steven Seeger Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3223434111_8818570" List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jeroen Van den Keybus , Jan Kiszka Cc: "xenomai@xenomai.org" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3223434111_8818570 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable There is a awful amount of code in this project, and I should point out tha= t this same code did not exhibit these problems under a fusion cvs from October. I can see about posting the full code, but my supervisors don=B9t want anything having our hardware addresses in it going out. This is an x86 board, so inb/outb are just instructions. I know about the volatile thing but that isn=B9t my problem. I=B9m having realtime preemption issues. Steven On 2/21/06 1:20 PM, "Jeroen Van den Keybus" wrote: > It would be helpful if a complete code could be posted. That means, inclu= ding > the main() function, in which the task dispatching is done as well. > =20 > Furthermore, be sure to declare counting variables inside waiting loops w= ith > the 'volatile' specifier. The compiler might optimize it away otherwise. > =20 > Another, maybe dumb suggestion: how is inb() / outb() actually implemente= d on > your platform ? > =20 > =20 > Jeroen. > =20 >=20 --B_3223434111_8818570 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Xenomai-help] no-brainer issue found, but not solved There= is a awful amount of code in this project, and I should point out that this= same code did not exhibit these problems under a fusion cvs from October. I= can see about posting the full code, but my supervisors don’t want an= ything having our hardware addresses in it going out.

This is an x86 board, so inb/outb are just instructions.

I know about the volatile thing but that isn’t my problem. I’m = having realtime preemption issues.

Steven

On 2/21/06 1:20 PM, "Jeroen Van den Keybus" <jeroen.vandenkeyb= us@domain.hid> wrote:

It would be helpful if a complete code could be posted.= That means, including the main() function, in which the task dispatching is= done as well.
 
Furthermore, be sure to declare counting variables inside waiting loops wit= h the 'volatile' specifier. The compiler might optimize it away otherwise.  
Another, maybe dumb suggestion: how is inb() / outb() actually implemented = on your platform ?
 
 
Jeroen.
 


 --B_3223434111_8818570--