1.6 development planning thread

philmoz

3445

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #10 on: 21 / November / 2020, 17:31:41 »

Advertisements

Quote from: whim on 21 / November / 2020, 17:25:38

Quote from: philmoz on 21 / November / 2020, 15:34:59

Thanks for that - can you check if '->' also works on Windows (single quotes around string instead of escaping)?

Sorry for not being clear - the quotes are just to show what is literally shown on screen/in logs.
All the files contain 1 or more lines like "@echo blah \-\> something" (without the quotes).
Suggestion is, to replace these with "@echo blah -\> something" (again, without quotes).
Result: nicer screen/log output, works on all my Windows toolchains.
Not tested on linux (never succeeded compiling CHDK on my manjaro linux box).
Hope that clarifies it a bit - in short I'm just proposing that escaping a minus sign is unnecessary
after an echo command; the greater than/redirection sign still needs escaping.

hope that I understood and answered your question ...
whim

Sorry my question was not clear. Instead of escaping the '>' symbol I'm suggesting putting it all in single quotes so it's treated as a string. To me this makes the meaning clearer. It works on MacOS / Linux; but not sure about Windows.
"@echo blah '->' something"

Phil.

Logged

CHDK ports:
sx30is (1.00c, 1.00h, 1.00l, 1.00n & 1.00p)
g12 (1.00c, 1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
sx130is (1.01d & 1.01f)
ixus310hs (1.00a & 1.01a)
sx40hs (1.00d, 1.00g & 1.00i)
g1x (1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
g5x (1.00c, 1.01a, 1.01b)
g7x2 (1.01a, 1.01b, 1.10b)

whim

2046
A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #11 on: 22 / November / 2020, 03:11:20 »

@philmoz

Thanks, looks fine that way on Windows GCC 493 and 541 toolchains.

whim

Logged

*Wikia FAQ *GCC Compiler Shell for Windows

srsa_4c

4451

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #12 on: 22 / November / 2020, 06:33:32 »

Quote from: philmoz on 21 / November / 2020, 15:34:59

Quote
BTW Getting an assembler error on my (Windows) GCC 5.4.1 toolchain compiling for m10 (110f), compiles just fine for all other cams.

Discussed here https://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php?topic=12758.msg144545#msg144545
GCC5 generates slightly different instructions which messes up one of the branch tables. I was leaving this for srsa_4c.

Should be resolved after this commit.

The reason of my above mumbling about OPT_WARNINGS is that I'd like to keep following in host_rules.inc, with or without the # in front of the middle row:

Code: [Select]

ifdef OPT_WARNINGS
    #HOSTCFLAGS+=-Wextra -fdiagnostics-show-option -Wno-missing-field-initializers -Wunused -Wno-unused-param
endif

Logged

whim

2046
A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #13 on: 22 / November / 2020, 07:27:08 »

Quote

Should be resolved after this commit.

Compiles and works fine for me (GCC 541host481 on Win 10 v1909, M10-110f)
Thanks, @srsa_4c and @philmoz !!
whim

« Last Edit: 22 / November / 2020, 07:36:55 by whim »

Logged

*Wikia FAQ *GCC Compiler Shell for Windows

philmoz

3445

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #14 on: 22 / November / 2020, 15:35:23 »

Quote from: srsa_4c on 22 / November / 2020, 06:33:32

The reason of my above mumbling about OPT_WARNINGS is that I'd like to keep following in host_rules.inc, with or without the # in front of the middle row:
Code: [Select]
ifdef OPT_WARNINGS #HOSTCFLAGS+=-Wextra -fdiagnostics-show-option -Wno-missing-field-initializers -Wunused -Wno-unused-param endif

I don't have a problem with keeping it; but I would uncomment it.
If it's there may as well use it.

Phil.

Logged

CHDK ports:
sx30is (1.00c, 1.00h, 1.00l, 1.00n & 1.00p)
g12 (1.00c, 1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
sx130is (1.01d & 1.01f)
ixus310hs (1.00a & 1.01a)
sx40hs (1.00d, 1.00g & 1.00i)
g1x (1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
g5x (1.00c, 1.01a, 1.01b)
g7x2 (1.01a, 1.01b, 1.10b)

philmoz

3445

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #15 on: 24 / November / 2020, 16:14:06 »

The GCC 3 cleanup changes have been added to 1.6 release in changeset 5637 - let me know if any issues are encountered.

This also includes the build output fix for Windows.

Phil.

Logged

CHDK ports:
sx30is (1.00c, 1.00h, 1.00l, 1.00n & 1.00p)
g12 (1.00c, 1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
sx130is (1.01d & 1.01f)
ixus310hs (1.00a & 1.01a)
sx40hs (1.00d, 1.00g & 1.00i)
g1x (1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
g5x (1.00c, 1.01a, 1.01b)
g7x2 (1.01a, 1.01b, 1.10b)

whim

2046
A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #16 on: 25 / November / 2020, 03:33:56 »

@philmoz

Works great for me on gcc 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (after modifying arm_rules.inc as needed)
Remarkably, gcc 8 produced up to 2k5 smaller diskboot.bin's than gcc 9 for me.
Just tested compilation, will update when more results.

Thanks,

whim

Logged

*Wikia FAQ *GCC Compiler Shell for Windows

philmoz

3445

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #17 on: 25 / November / 2020, 03:54:51 »

Quote from: whim on 25 / November / 2020, 03:33:56

Works great for me on gcc 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (after modifying arm_rules.inc as needed)
Remarkably, gcc 8 produced up to 2k5 smaller diskboot.bin's than gcc 9 for me.
Just tested compilation, will update when more results.

I would be very interested if you can build a working version with GCC 6 or later on older cameras.
It works for Digic 6 & 7; but when I tried older builds the compiler generates the wrong code for arm/thumb interworking and the build will not run.

Phil.

Logged

CHDK ports:
sx30is (1.00c, 1.00h, 1.00l, 1.00n & 1.00p)
g12 (1.00c, 1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
sx130is (1.01d & 1.01f)
ixus310hs (1.00a & 1.01a)
sx40hs (1.00d, 1.00g & 1.00i)
g1x (1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
g5x (1.00c, 1.01a, 1.01b)
g7x2 (1.01a, 1.01b, 1.10b)

whim

2046
A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #18 on: 25 / November / 2020, 06:30:54 »

@philmoz

Yes, you're right about that - ixus70 (D3vxworks) and ixus255 (D5) fail to boot when compiled with either gcc 6 or gcc 9; my M10 (D6) appears to be running OK (currently on 5537 from gcc831).

whim

« Last Edit: 25 / November / 2020, 06:35:29 by whim »

Logged

*Wikia FAQ *GCC Compiler Shell for Windows

Caefix

940
Sorry, busy deleting test shots...

Re: 1.6 development planning thread

« Reply #19 on: 30 / November / 2020, 11:27:05 »

-Wnested-externs ??

Quote from: philmoz on 22 / November / 2020, 15:35:23

Quote from: srsa_4c on 22 / November / 2020, 06:33:32
The reason of my above mumbling about OPT_WARNINGS is that I'd like to keep following in host_rules.inc, with or without the # in front of the middle row:

Code: [Select]

ifdef OPT_WARNINGS
    HOSTCFLAGS+=-Wextra -fdiagnostics-show-option -Wno-missing-field-initializers 
    HOSTCFLAGS+=-Wno-sign-compare -Wunused -Wno-unused-parameter
    HOSTCFLAGS+=-Wstrict-aliasing -Wunknown-pragmas -Wmissing-braces -Wparentheses  -Wnested-externs
#    HOSTCFLAGS+=-Wold-style-definition -Wold-style-declaration 
#    HOSTCFLAGS+=-Wtraditional-conversion
endif

Edit: Seems solved.

I collected the reclamated lines as forward references /// & commented them out. (->.zip)

Edit2:

-Wpedantic

Added -std=gnu11 -funsigned-char to host_rule.inc line 5 to avoid 10000 lines like ...

Code: [Select]

../lib/font/font_8x16_uni.h:360:9: warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion [-Woverflow]
         0xCE,    /* 11001110 */
         ^

-mtune=arm946e-s, ...66e-s, ...68e-s seem same.
Edit3:
Other tinities: -std=gnu11 is my default, 1000 lines less...
Uptodayted zip.

for an other warning less...tools/elfflt line 25 needs

Code: [Select]

static const unsigned char elf_magic_header[] =// 0xFade 0x02 0x01dfee1d : "Shaddow of a bug" : https://forum.chdk-treff.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1437

finsig_dryos_vxworks5659.zip (95.64 kB - downloaded 8 times.)

« Last Edit: 05 / December / 2020, 13:38:25 by Caefix »

Logged

All lifetime is a loan from eternity.