[moved from tracker item]

I am using CrossWorks 1.6 build 3 (=> GCC codesourcery
version 4.1.0) and FreeRTOS 4.1.1. I am compiling my
project in THUMB mode. The problem occurs in small
functions without local variables. The following code
is generated (interleaved view of the crossworks debugger):

01: StatModeInfo *GetStatModeInfo(void)
02: {
03: B580 push {r7, lr}
04: AF02 add r7, sp, #0x008
05: return( &g_StatModeInfo );
06: 4B03 ldr r3, [pc, #0x00c]
07: }//StatModeInfo *GetStatModeInfo(void)
08: 1C18 adds r0, r3, #0x0
09: 46BD mov sp, r7
10: B082 sub sp, #0x008
11: BC80 pop {r7}
12: BC02 pop {r1}
13: 4708 bx r1

When a timer interrupt (context switch) occurs after
the execution of line 9 but before line 10 then the
context of the current task will be copied to the
stack. But the SP is wrong at that moment! The return
address will be overwritten with some register contents.

The problem does not occur in ARM mode (at least I have
not yet seen it). And it does not occur with GCC 3.4.4
(comes with CrossWorks 1.5 build 2). Maybe this is not
a bug and should be treated as an incompatibility
between FreeRTOS 4.1.1 and codesourcery GCC 4.1.0??

René

Thanks for the information. Can you provide the compiler switches you were using when this code was compiled (optimisation in particular). Thanks.

Regards.

On line #4, why is 8 added to the stack pointer. Should this not be subtracted for a negative growing stack?

Optimization is off.

The compiler switches for the file containing the mentioned function GetStatModeInfo() are:
-mlittle-endian -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wunused-variable -gdwarf-2 -march=armv4t -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -mlittle-endian -fno-builtin -msoft-float -mfpu=vfp

I have already got a hint from CrossWorks helpdesk. With compiler switch -fomit-frame-pointers the code works. But I don't understand completely the meaning of this switch. I am not sure about the consequences this switch has for the generated code and so I am not sure if it does solve the problem in any case.


René

Because 8 bytes have already been pushed onto the stack, and it is recording the stack position for when the function exits.

Regards.

There was some talk in this forum before with using -fomit-frame-pointers with WinARM. I think this is a bug in GCC. Any interrupt code that switches to use system mode will have this problem. It is not just FreeRTOS but all the ST standard interrupt stubs do this.

Having discussed this with people that know a lot more about GCC than me the consensus is that this is a bug in GCC, of which users need to be aware.

Regards.

-fomit-frame-pointers does the trick, but unfortunately messes up the ability for the debugger (Rowley CrossWorks) to properly unwind the stack.

GCC 4.1.1 does not fix the problem.

So I am curious to know what people are doing. The choices seem to be to use ARM mode (I haven't yet verified that this even works) or live with a crippled debuggin environment. Are there other suggestions?

Ah. What I was forgetting was that FreeRTOS could be 'fixed'.
The patch is quite inocuous (little overhead and still works
in the absence of the GCC bug).

The bug is that in Thumb mode GCC can emit code that, on the
return from functions with certain prototypes, will briefly
have the stack pointer located 8 bytes into the actual stack.
If a context switch occurs here, the task registers are saved
on the stack, thus clobbering the valid data there.

So the fix is to always skip 8 stack bytes before pushing the
task context. I know this is not ideal, but it is the best
alternative for me right now.

In the portSAVE_CONTEXT() macro of portmacro.h, just subtract
8 from the stack pointer (actually in R0 at the point of
interest), just before the return address is pushed. Some of
the surrounding dressing has been removed in the following
snippet:

/*gb - step over possible GCC stacked items (GCC bug)*/
"SUBR0, R0, #8 ....

/* Push the return address onto the stack. */
"STMDBR0!, {LR} ....

I hope it is never more than 8 bytes! My test hasn't been all
thorough. But I don't think I have broken anything.

Thanks for the fix but should be aware this is a problem with any code that uses the user stack from an ISR. Any bought software might do this. I think this is a big bug in GCC that needs fixing.