CCS/tms320c6657: line 330: expecting Identifier, found '(' (Hex)

Hi,

I have been trying to find an example code that could have a similar struct as the one you mentioned, so I could try to reproduce the problem. Unfortunately I couldn't find the exact same parameter you mentioned and any other struct I tried worked quite well in my setup.

Therefore I ask: would you mind sharing a piece of code that exhibits the problem?

I apologize for the inconvenience,
Rafael

The problem can be seen looking at this in the Expressions tab:  (EDMA_ShadowRegs_t *)(0x02742000)

or by looking a p_edmaShadowRegs in the Variables tab.

/*
 * main.c
 */

#include <stdint.h>

#define EDMA3CC_BASE_ADDR                 (0x02740000u)
#define EDMA3CC_SHADOW_REGION_0_BASE_ADDR (0x02742000)


/*--- Shadow region 0 channel registers overlay ---
 *
 * see sprugs5b, Table 4-1, p92
 */
typedef struct {
   volatile uint32_t ER;             /* 2000h */
   volatile uint32_t ERH;            /* 2004h */
   volatile uint32_t ECR;            /* 2008h */
   volatile uint32_t ECRH;           /* 200Ch */
   volatile uint32_t ESR;            /* 2010h */
   volatile uint32_t ESRH;           /* 2014h */
   volatile uint32_t CER;            /* 2018h */
   volatile uint32_t CERH;           /* 201Ch */
   volatile uint32_t EER;            /* 2020h */
   volatile uint32_t EERH;           /* 2024h */
   volatile uint32_t EECR;           /* 2028h */
   volatile uint32_t EECRH;          /* 202Ch */
   volatile uint32_t EESR;           /* 2030h */
   volatile uint32_t EESRH;          /* 2034h */
   volatile uint32_t SER;            /* 2038h */
   volatile uint32_t SERH;           /* 203Ch */
   volatile uint32_t SECR;           /* 2040h */
   volatile uint32_t SECRH;          /* 2044h */
   volatile uint8_t  RSVD10[8];
   volatile uint32_t IER;            /* 2050h */
   volatile uint32_t IERH;           /* 2054h */
   volatile uint32_t IECR;           /* 2058h */
   volatile uint32_t IECRH;          /* 205Ch */
   volatile uint32_t IESR;           /* 2060h */
   volatile uint32_t IESRH;          /* 2064h */
   volatile uint32_t IPR;            /* 2068h */
   volatile uint32_t IPRH;           /* 206Ch */
   volatile uint32_t ICR;            /* 2070h */
   volatile uint32_t ICRH;           /* 2074h */
   volatile uint32_t IEVAL;          /* 2078h */
   volatile uint8_t  RSVD11[4];
   volatile uint32_t QER;            /* 2080h */
   volatile uint32_t QEER;           /* 2084h */
   volatile uint32_t QEECR;          /* 2088h */
   volatile uint32_t QEESR;          /* 208Ch */
   volatile uint32_t QSER;           /* 2090h */
   volatile uint32_t QSECR;          /* 2094h */
   } EDMA_ShadowRegs_t;


int main(void)
{

   /* need this for emulator to see the type in the Expressions tab */
   volatile EDMA_ShadowRegs_t * p_edmaShadowRegs = (EDMA_ShadowRegs_t *)EDMA3CC_SHADOW_REGION_0_BASE_ADDR;

	return 0;
}

/* EOF */

Hi,

Thank you for sending the code; however, I was unable to reproduce this issue here.

Therefore I ask: which version of CCS are you using? The screenshot above was taken with CCSv7.1.0 but I also tested CCSv6.2.0.

Regards,

Rafael

I am using 7.0.0.00043, though I am due to get a new workstation (today!) with 7.1 installed. I will wait for the new machine, try again and report back on results with 7.1.0.

With the new workstation and CCS 7.1 the results were the same as before. However, when I changed emulator pods the problem was resolved.

Bad pod: BH-XDS-560v2 (three bad in the last month)
Good pod: BH-USB-560v2

Hi,

Wow, thank you for reporting back your surprising findings. I will try a few different pods here and report back.

Regards,
Rafael

Hi,

Unfortunately I couldn't reproduce this on my three JTAG debug probes: BH-USB-560v2, BH-XDS-560v2 and XDS560V2 STM. I send the pictures just in case you spot anything that may be different between our environments. 

Given that you have been having trouble with failing debug probes, did you double-check the possibility of having any ground loops that may be confusing (and maybe damaging) the BH-XDS-560v2 pods? The differences in the number of electrical connections and hardware design may account for the observed differences in behaviour. 

Hope this helps,

Rafael