[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?
From: |
hutchinsonandy |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation? |
Date: |
Tue, 13 May 2008 13:19:53 -0400 |
I agreed
ROM is not reuseable or infinite thus cannot be auto.
The keyword should either:
1) Be rejected as invalid
2) carry a warning if the static qualifier is missing - and assume
static (or auto )
or
3) Assume static usage in the function context - and be noted as such.
Where it appears to assume "auto" with no warning, which seems
undesirable and much more surprising that the above.
I vote it is bug.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave N6NZ <address@hidden>
To: AVR-GCC <address@hidden>
Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?
Marc Wetzel wrote:
>>>> Is this the intended behaviour?
What cause is here the trigger?
>>> I'm not eaxctly sure why they behave differently, but the
latter causes teststring[] to be allocated in the .data
section instead of .progmem. >>
Probably because the second case does not have the 'static' keyword?
Eric
> Thank you all for your quick answers. I get it now, but if you ask
me: > I don't like it.
I always saw the prog_mem keyword just like a "flash" modifier, don't
know from where I got it (IAR maybe?).
> Who would need the differentiation of "static flash" and "flash"
;-)
But I will never forget again.
To me, locally allocated non-static flash is the nonsensical concept. A
locally allocated variable is by nature not permanent, unless static.
Of course, since PROGMEM is only a code section attribute, the compiler
has no simple way of making semantic checks of that nature. A warning
or error would be nice, but I imagine it would be difficult to
implement.
avr-gcc follows the C standards very well. You say: "I don't like it."
Sometimes non-standard, non-portable behavior *is* convenient in the
short term -- but it has unpleasant consequences in the long term.
-dave
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
- [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?, Marc Wetzel, 2008/05/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?, Mark Litwack, 2008/05/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?, Mark Litwack, 2008/05/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?, Bob Paddock, 2008/05/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?, Marc Wetzel, 2008/05/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?, Bob Paddock, 2008/05/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?, Mark Litwack, 2008/05/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?, hutchinsonandy, 2008/05/13
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] prog_mem limitation?, Weddington, Eric, 2008/05/13