[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?
From: |
andrewhutchinson |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256? |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Dec 2009 8:35:06 -0500 |
Thanks, it would be nice if this was documented.
I noticed it when reviewing addressing modes and a omission in call patterns.
void (*fptr)();
fptr = main;
(*fptr)(); //Will use EICALL - should be CALL main
which become readily apparent with inlined code.
Andy
---- Sean D'Epagnier <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 12/14/09, Andrew Hutchinson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > The patterns for AVR mega 256 use EICALL an EIJMP
> >
> > Both require EIND to be set to provide upper address bits
> >
> > However, we are using linker trampolines for both, so in either case the
> > 16 bit jump or call is to the trampolines.
> >
> > Are not the trampolines always located in first 128Kbytes? Thus we
> > should be using ICALL and IJMP and not needing to set use EIND at all.
> >
> > What have I miss-understood?
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes this confused me a lot too, but the reason is because the
> trampoline is not in the first 128kbytes for a bootloader, so if the
> compiler uses eijmp and eicall, then it is possible to do indirect
> calls there too, but it still works fine in normal code.
>
> Sean
>
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AVR-GCC-list mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
> >
- [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Andrew Hutchinson, 2009/12/14
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Sean D'Epagnier, 2009/12/15
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?,
andrewhutchinson <=
- R: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, palmerino tallarico, 2009/12/15
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Lars Noschinski, 2009/12/15
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Dusan Ferbas, 2009/12/17
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Andrew Hutchinson, 2009/12/17
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Dusan Ferbas, 2009/12/17
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Andy H, 2009/12/17
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Dusan Ferbas, 2009/12/17
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Weddington, Eric, 2009/12/17
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, Sean D'Epagnier, 2009/12/18
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Why are we using EICALL and EIJMP for AVR256?, andrewhutchinson, 2009/12/18