• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Answers 2 answers
  • Subscribers 53 subscribers
  • Views 451 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

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.

Compiler/TMS320F28335: CCS8 __byte instruction issue

Stephen So
Prodigy 165 points
Part Number: TMS320F28335

Tool/software: TI C/C++ Compiler

I have a piece of code which compiles fine in CCS6 (compiler 6.4.12), but does not compile in CCS8 (compiler 18.1.5.LTS).

This throws an error:

    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xA+1) = 0;
    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xB+1) = 0;
    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xC+1) = 0;
    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xD+1) = 0;
    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xE+1) = 0; //line 612: error #19: extra text after expected end of number

 

But this compiles fine in CCS8:

    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xA+1) = 0;
    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xB+1) = 0;
    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xC+1) = 0;
    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xD+1) = 0;
    __byte((int*)rtc_output_array,0xD+2) = 0;

Something about 0xE + a number does not seem to work in CCS8 using 18.1.5.LTS.

 

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 239845 points

    Thank you for reporting this problem, and for including a concise test case.  I can reproduce the same behavior.  I filed the entry CODEGEN-6029 in the SDOWP system to have this investigated.  You are welcome to follow it with the SDOWP link below in my signature.

    Thanks and regards,

    -George

  • 0
    TI__Guru* 84225 points

    This is not a bug.  Unfortunately, the parsing rules for C code are a bit complicated, and this is an example of a bizarre corner that one usually does not notice.  The C standard tells us that programs are parsed token-by-token, and each token may be one of several things including a keyword, an identifier, or a "preprocessing number", which includes integer constants.  (See C99 6.4.8 "Preprocessing numbers," but essentially the same text appears in C89.)  "A preprocessing number starts with a digit optionally preceded by a period and may be followed by [..] the character sequences e+, e-, E+, E- [..]."  This means that the compiler is required to consider the character sequence "0xE+" as a valid preprocessing number.  Unfortunately, this is not a legal constant of any form, thus you see the error.  To work around this issue, put a space between the E and the plus sign.