• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 30 subscribers
  • Views 277 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

Suggested improvements to TIVAWare headers

Chris Ring
Genius 17205 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TM4C1294NCPDT

I just got bit by a failure to add -DPART_<part#> when using the TIVAWare headers, and have a suggestion to improve user experience.

In short, I included a TIVAWare header (#include <inc/hw_ints.h>) and failed to define my part number (didn't throw -DPART_TM4C1294NCPDT).  During compilation, I got this error (among others);

"EK_TM4C1294XL.c", line 122: error: identifier "INT_RESOLVE" is undefined

A better user experience would have been for the TIVAWare header(s) to detect I forgot to set TARGET_ nor PART_ and use #warning or #error to emit a hint that no TARGET_ or PART_ was recognized.  Would have started me down the path to success rather than left me scratching my head wondering what to do next.

At a minimum, maybe someone will find this post helpful if encountering a similar compiler error.

Chris

  • 0
    Guru 20670 points

    i actualy lost alot of time because of this error since it doesn't realy tell what to do to fix it. It would be a great improvement to add that since TivaWare is about making quicker, yet still somewhat eficient, coding 

  • 0 in reply to Luis Afonso
    Guru 47900 points

    Bravo to you two for this important attempt to, "Improve User Experience."  So true - and so poorly highlighted/guard-banded! 

    Interesting/eventful that member of the vendor staff - identified & presented here - thanks so much for that.

    Issue is further complicated as each IDE has its own unique means of compliance - mastering one may not quickly/easily gain, "safe harbor" to a different IDE.

    Sometimes - if/when a project "pre-exists" for user's exact MCU (to include its Rev id) user may "attach/hook into" that exact project - and escape this arcane/demanding, MCU specification requirement.  Yet - this event is rare - and thus extremely limiting in usage.

    It would seem that the, "unforgiving nature" of this strict requirement would warrant far better highlighting and even guard-banding (as poster here suggested) to, "heighten" (i.e. make usable!) the client-user experience. 

    Even those successful here - regularly assisting others - cannot state with precision just, "HOW" they learned of and mastered this strict requirement.  (large bet sits atop (past) bruises/red stains - their person)   Learning by such, "trauma/bleeding" should not trump proper alerting/warning/how-to signage - which steers users safely aside such mayhem...