• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 29 replies
  • Subscribers 21 subscribers
  • Views 5038 views
  • Users 0 members are here
2025 survey

We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.

Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Wierd problem in modifying the bootloader code

Aykut Birsen

Hi,

I am using Phytec LPC3250 board for my design and I have a very important problem that I have been spending time on for days.

I want to modify my bootloader_NOR code so that I can send my application code image from the serial port.

However, when I define a global variable and use this variable in a function it gets wierd values. My code can be simplified as below:

#include "LPC318x.H"

int  m = 0;

void MyFunction(int value)    // do nothing function
{
}

int main(void)
{
  for(;;)
  {
    m++;                        // <- Breakpoint
    MyFunction(m);
  }
}

When I debug the code, I see "m = 0xE0000420" at the breakpoint where I expect to see 0x00.

This ruins all my intention and I cannot proceed to modify the code.

I think the data in the RAM region is corrupted but I dont know why and I have no sensible solution for this.

Thanks for your helps in advance.

Parents
  • 0 in reply to HansBernhard Broeker

    "You'll have to forgive me for simplistically assuming you actually meant what you said."

    I said that I never use static initialisers.

    I said that it gives me what I need.

    I said that it would not always be the best solution.

    Surely you can see the implication that it may not always be the best solution for other situations for other people.

    No contradiction there.

    What I said is what I meant.

    I have also tried to be accurate when responding to the original problem posted by the OP - I'll refrain from passing comment on your first post regarding the matter!

Reply
  • 0 in reply to HansBernhard Broeker

    "You'll have to forgive me for simplistically assuming you actually meant what you said."

    I said that I never use static initialisers.

    I said that it gives me what I need.

    I said that it would not always be the best solution.

    Surely you can see the implication that it may not always be the best solution for other situations for other people.

    No contradiction there.

    What I said is what I meant.

    I have also tried to be accurate when responding to the original problem posted by the OP - I'll refrain from passing comment on your first post regarding the matter!

Children