[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception
From: |
Çağlar AKYÜZ |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:34:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) |
B B wrote:
Hi Caglar and everyone else :)
I am using FreeRTOS v4.1.3 + lwip 1.2.0 + Rowley CrossWorks.
Hi,
As I said before, I'm using also this configuration and it is working in
a perfect harmony for me.
Upon further investigation, it actually seems to be a stack overflow,
which is
the root for my problem
I have increased the value for lwipTCP_STACK_SIZE from 600 to 800,
and now the application has run straight for over an hour.
I think this stack size is well suited for most kind of operation.
However, since you are encountering a
stack overflow issue, it is strongly probable that there is something
wrong with the code. How do you handle ethernet
tasks. Sockets api , raw api ? If you can post your ethernet task, then
you may find better support than me :)
I read up on the undef exception handling in the ARM archtecture
reference manual.
Which says that the instruction pointed to by LR is the instruction
after the instruction that caused
the exception.
I thought as per the Atmel datasheet that the failing address would be
present in the MC_AASR,
but the value in LR - offset, doesn't match the value in MC_AASR.
I think there is nothing important to be concern of this mis-alingment
error. Since there is a fact like stack overflow
you should concentrate on it.
Can you investigate your stack when you face the undef exception. If you
don't see 0xa5 values at the end your stack,then you
have a stack problem. If you can't debug your stack, you can try
avaliable options in the FreeRtos code.
Kind Regards,
Caglar AKYUZ
- RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, (continued)
- RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, B B, 2007/02/14
- RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, B B, 2007/02/14
- RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, Kieran Mansley, 2007/02/14
- RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, Goldschmidt Simon, 2007/02/15
- RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, Kieran Mansley, 2007/02/15
- RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, Goldschmidt Simon, 2007/02/15
- RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, Kieran Mansley, 2007/02/15
- RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, Goldschmidt Simon, 2007/02/15
Re: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, Çağlar AKYÜZ, 2007/02/14
RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, B B, 2007/02/15
- Re: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception,
Çağlar AKYÜZ <=
RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, B B, 2007/02/16
RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, B B, 2007/02/16
RE: [lwip-users] lwip + sam7x = udef exception, B B, 2007/02/23