• Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 81 subscribers
  • Views 266 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.

Bug in CLA example v126

Stefan W
Intellectual 280 points

Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CONTROLSUITE

Hi,

in the last day I tried to get the CLA example for the F2803x of the controlSUITE running - starting with cla_adc. I finally succeeded, but I was in trouble with a little change from v125 to v126. In v125 the example uses the MemCpy-function to move the CLA code to the CLA code ram (Example_2803xClaAdc.c). In v126 the memcpy-function is used. The parameterlist is adapted, but to the wrong order. The first parameter should be the destination, but the LoadStart-address is passed.

I think this is a bug. If it is something like a version incompatibility, it is really no good idea to mix up the order of parameters compared to the default.

The same situation occures in the other CLA examples in v126.

  • TI__Mastermind 20850 points

    Hi Stefan,

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. You are correct; the proper syntax should be :

    memcpy((uint16_t *)&Cla1funcsRunStart,(uint16_t *)&Cla1funcsLoadStart, (unsigned long)&Cla1funcsLoadSize);

    We have an open bug for this and it will be fixed on the next release.