Re: [avr-gcc-list] New prosessor goes into stack violation!

[E. Weddington]

Ben L. Titzer wrote:

> > >
> > No, this address is not, as I can understand, in the interrupt vector 
> > table. There are relatively few interrupt vector in this processor 
> > compared to the ordinary AVR processors. Since it originally is used 
> > in smart card applications it also has very limited I/O.
> >
> > Since this is in the startup code and no calls or anything has been 
> > done, the SP has not changed from its initial value. The only thing 
> > it has done some far is to set the SP and start copying from the end 
> > of the program area in flash to SRAM.
> >
> > As you can see from the disassembly this is ordinary avr-gcc startup 
> > code:
>
> The interrupt vector table is in flash anyway, and ST writes to SRAM, 
> so this shouldn't have anything to do with interrupts. 

Duh. Of course.

> Sorry I have to ask again, but what is the actual value of SP when the 
> store occurs?
>
> BTW, how much RAM does this particular chip have? The AT90 series had 
> a maximum of 512b IIRC.
Looks like 3K:
<http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/1316S.PDF>