• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 53 subscribers
  • Views 841 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.

Compiler/TMS320F2808: More .text memory for cgt 16.9.2 LTS versus cgt 6.4.6

Aditya Padmanabha
Expert 1440 points

Part Number: TMS320F2808

Tool/software: TI C/C++ Compiler

Hi,

I am using code generation tool v6.4.6 to build the code for F2808 processor but when I switched to the new cgt version v16.9.2 LTS even thought the generated code matches exactly with older cgt version, the memory occupied by .text section is increased by approximately 2.5+ kilo bytes causing the memory allocation failure for .text section in RAM HO section.

Upon looking at memory map for the same code with boot from flash option, the extra memory is occupied by rts2800_ml.lib. Under this a new obj k_rem_pio2.obj occupying 1.6 kilobytes and s_sinf.obj replacing sinf.obj (older cgt) occupying an extra memory of 0.5 kilo bytes. The rest of the .objs are taking lesser memory compared to the older version.

Please let us know the reason behind this problem and how to overcome the same.

-Aditya

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 253450 points

    Here is the sequence of events which lead to this point.

    TI decides that Code Composer Studio (CCS) should be free software.  The compiler RTS library, at that point, has some business arrangements related to it which prevent that.  So, we changed the library source code so such business arrangements are no longer needed.  Now CCS is free.  (Of course, this is a simplification of a larger story.)

    Changing the library source code means that some functions get bigger, and others get smaller.  Unfortunately, in your case, you see an overall increase in memory used.  It may be a small consolation that this implementation of sin is more accurate.

    Thanks and regards,

    -George