-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
rtos: declare vector table type as in Technical Note 11578 #12696
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Note, I don't have valid license locally to test this 😞 |
@0xc0170, thank you for your changes. |
This PR should be on hold until you can test it. |
I would not mind waiting but another PR is blocked on this unfortunately. @stevew817 would you be able to help testing this PR with #12547 ? To get 12547 in. |
@0xc0170 I don't have an IAR license checked out either :( |
Following IAR guide for RAM vector table, this is in the code snippet there: ``` extern void * __vector_RAM_table []; void main(void) ``` Found in ARMmbed#12547
2996022
to
5cbf666
Compare
Updated the code, follows what is in https://www.iar.com/support/tech-notes/general/execute-in-ram-after-copying-from-flashrom-v5.20-and-later/. This should fix the error we have seen. I got license sorted out, compiled fine for tests. |
Please review, and its ready for CI 💯 |
Why does this matter? You're not doing anything with it via the C language, so I can't see how the type matters. You're just getting a symbol reference, right? |
Correct, there is #12547 (comment) but that PR needs an update (it contains invalid type declaration). I can close this PR. |
Oh, is it a type mismatch versus a different extern declaration someone is adding in a public header? I'm tempted to question why they're adding that definition to a public header. As it's not really a C structure, the C typing of it is debatable, and different people might want to use a different type. There are pros and cons depending what you're doing. Putting it in a header forces everyone to use the same type, and triggers conflict. Depends what the code source is. If they have "authority" on the type/platform, maybe? Although the |
Yes, I updated the PR with the comment, I missed previously they redeclare it in the header file that gets in the includes. I keep this as it is, follows IAR guide so just an improvement, not a "fix" as stated previously. |
Ci started |
Test run: SUCCESSSummary: 6 of 6 test jobs passed |
Summary of changes
Most references I found for IAR, they use a pointer to an array . We need this for a pragma
later, thus we should use the same type.
Found in #12547
@amq @stevew817
Impact of changes
Migration actions required
Documentation
Pull request type
Test results
Reviewers