• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 22 subscribers
  • Views 1282 views
  • Users 0 members are here
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

No MULTIPLE CALL TO SEGMENT warning where it should be...

Alexander Sorockin

Please consider the following code.

//--- module main.c ---

...

void main() {
        ...
        set_status_word(...);
        ...
}

//--- module can.c ---

...

void CAN_int_handler(void) interrupt 7 {
        ...
        set_status_word(...);
        ...
}

//--- module utils.c ---

...

void set_status_word(...) {
        ...
}

If you replace the calls to set_status_word() with calls to printf(), the linker issues a "multiple call to segment" warning, but, like this, this code causes no warnings. Why not? I looked at the assembler output of the set_status_word() function and noticed that it isn't using absolute register addressing. Can this relate somehow?

Parents
  • 0 in reply to Christoph Franck

    The function is intrinsically reentrant.

    *sigh* Ok, I wrote this too fast. This function can still result in a garbled value of status_word, because each of the two bytes is written individually. If there's an interrupt (with another call of set_status_word()) right after the first byte is written, status_word might get set to an erroneous value.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Christoph Franck

    The function is intrinsically reentrant.

    *sigh* Ok, I wrote this too fast. This function can still result in a garbled value of status_word, because each of the two bytes is written individually. If there's an interrupt (with another call of set_status_word()) right after the first byte is written, status_word might get set to an erroneous value.

Children