Bugfix I_DELAY macro #1310
Closed
Bugfix I_DELAY macro #1310
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When compiling
> const ulp_insn_t program[] = {
> I_DELAY(1)
> };
with the xtensa-esp32-elf-g++ compiler i always got the error:
> sorry, unimplemented: non-trivial designated initializers not supported
>
> };
This was due to the different order in the macro and the struct. The struct has another order of the fields (opcode, unused, cycles) vs (cycles, unused, opcode):
> struct {
> uint32_t cycles : 16; /*!< Number of cycles to sleep */
> uint32_t unused : 12; /*!< Unused */
> uint32_t opcode : 4; /*!< Opcode (OPCODE_DELAY) */
> } delay; /*!< Format of DELAY instruction */
After updating the order in the macro it is possible to compile with the g++ compiler.
|
|
|
Thanks @robotrovsky . I've cherry-picked this into our review & merge queue. |
|
Thanks to you @projectgus and the ESP32 team, you made an incredible platform!! Anyways i think this is more a compiler issue than a IDF issue. |
|
Yes, C++ is backwards-compatible with C except for a few additional rules like this one for PODs. We try to catch these at time of writing, but because most of our code is in C some can slip through. |
igrr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 11, 2017
When compiling
> const ulp_insn_t program[] = {
> I_DELAY(1)
> };
with the xtensa-esp32-elf-g++ compiler i always got the error:
> sorry, unimplemented: non-trivial designated initializers not supported
>
> };
This was due to the different order in the macro and the struct. The struct has another order of the fields (opcode, unused, cycles) vs (cycles, unused, opcode):
> struct {
> uint32_t cycles : 16; /*!< Number of cycles to sleep */
> uint32_t unused : 12; /*!< Unused */
> uint32_t opcode : 4; /*!< Opcode (OPCODE_DELAY) */
> } delay; /*!< Format of DELAY instruction */
After updating the order in the macro it is possible to compile with the g++ compiler.
Merges #1310
|
Cherry-picked as 6a51a13. Thanks! |
igrr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 29, 2017
When compiling
> const ulp_insn_t program[] = {
> I_DELAY(1)
> };
with the xtensa-esp32-elf-g++ compiler i always got the error:
> sorry, unimplemented: non-trivial designated initializers not supported
>
> };
This was due to the different order in the macro and the struct. The struct has another order of the fields (opcode, unused, cycles) vs (cycles, unused, opcode):
> struct {
> uint32_t cycles : 16; /*!< Number of cycles to sleep */
> uint32_t unused : 12; /*!< Unused */
> uint32_t opcode : 4; /*!< Opcode (OPCODE_DELAY) */
> } delay; /*!< Format of DELAY instruction */
After updating the order in the macro it is possible to compile with the g++ compiler.
Merges #1310
0xFEEDC0DE64
pushed a commit
to 0xFEEDC0DE64/esp-idf
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When compiling
with the xtensa-esp32-elf-g++ compiler i always got the error:
This was due to the different order in the macro and the struct. The struct has another order of the fields (opcode, unused, cycles) vs (cycles, unused, opcode):
After updating the order in the macro it is possible to compile with the g++ compiler.