Thank you Sandor. Your problem with PED sounds like an issue with your system settings in PED. The system setting in PED should be identical to those in PEDnew. If you cannot find the issue by comparing the two, please post images of both and I will see if I can see the problem.
Bug in Optimizer at CompareBlock?
Merlin
Administrator
Gender:
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
wsandor
Benutzer
Gender: n/a
Age: 53
Posts: 21
Registered: 07 / 2012
Age: 53
Posts: 21
Registered: 07 / 2012
Merlin
Administrator
Gender:
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
Merlin
Administrator
Gender:
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
wsandor
Benutzer
Gender: n/a
Age: 53
Posts: 21
Registered: 07 / 2012
Age: 53
Posts: 21
Registered: 07 / 2012
Re: Bug in Optimizer at CompareBlock?
· Posted: 30.10.2024 - 07:55 · #13
Dear Merlin,
Have a nice holiday!
I've attached a picture about a WinMerge of the two asm files. The left side is without the optimiser. Maybe I miss something, but as I see, the optimized version sets only the _DispData_Old's and _DispDataShclk_old's addresses and doesn't set_DispData's and _DispDataShclk's before calling SYSTEM.RamCompRam. What is your opinion?
Sándor
Have a nice holiday!
I've attached a picture about a WinMerge of the two asm files. The left side is without the optimiser. Maybe I miss something, but as I see, the optimized version sets only the _DispData_Old's and _DispDataShclk_old's addresses and doesn't set_DispData's and _DispDataShclk's before calling SYSTEM.RamCompRam. What is your opinion?
Sándor
Attachments
 |
|
| Filename: | Diff.jpg |
| Filesize: | 329.86 KB |
| Title: | |
| Download counter: | 110 |
Merlin
Administrator
Gender:
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
Re: Bug in Optimizer at CompareBlock?
· Posted: 04.11.2024 - 20:10 · #14
Thanks Sandor.
Yes it looks like you are right. I must have been looking forward to my holiday too much!
I will check it out.
Merlin.
Yes it looks like you are right. I must have been looking forward to my holiday too much!
I will check it out.
Merlin.
Merlin
Administrator
Gender:
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
Age: 25
Posts: 1416
Registered: 03 / 2005
Re: Bug in Optimizer at CompareBlock?
· Posted: 15.11.2024 - 13:16 · #15
Hello Sandor.
Sorry for the delay. I have been having problems with my computer.
Please find attached a new optimiser that I believe should solve your problem.
Sorry for the delay. I have been having problems with my computer.
Please find attached a new optimiser that I believe should solve your problem.
Attachments
 |
|
| Filename: | MerlinOptimiser.zip |
| Filesize: | 422.13 KB |
| Title: | |
| Download counter: | 22 |
wsandor
Benutzer
Gender: n/a
Age: 53
Posts: 21
Registered: 07 / 2012
Age: 53
Posts: 21
Registered: 07 / 2012
Re: Bug in Optimizer at CompareBlock?
· Posted: 20.11.2024 - 08:49 · #16
Dear Merlin,
Thanks for the new optimiser, it solves the problem!
In the meantime I run into an other problem. It is not related to the optimiser but the dsc files.
One of my old projects uses the ATTiny841 (441) chip. I tried to compile it with the new compiler and get many errors. The problem is that the dsc files changed from that they were in ver 5.x. The date of the "old' dscs are 2016. august 10, while the "New" ones are 2021. december 2. I made a little table comparing the old and new DSCs and the datasheet. From it you can see that most of the time the old dsc is better than the new. (except at the numbering of the UARTs which is different in most of processors I used - 1-2 vs. 0-1) Why it was modified? Is it safe to replace them with the old ones? (the program compiles with then without errors)
Sandor Wortmann
Thanks for the new optimiser, it solves the problem!
In the meantime I run into an other problem. It is not related to the optimiser but the dsc files.
One of my old projects uses the ATTiny841 (441) chip. I tried to compile it with the new compiler and get many errors. The problem is that the dsc files changed from that they were in ver 5.x. The date of the "old' dscs are 2016. august 10, while the "New" ones are 2021. december 2. I made a little table comparing the old and new DSCs and the datasheet. From it you can see that most of the time the old dsc is better than the new. (except at the numbering of the UARTs which is different in most of processors I used - 1-2 vs. 0-1) Why it was modified? Is it safe to replace them with the old ones? (the program compiles with then without errors)
Sandor Wortmann
Attachments
|
|
| Filename: | tiny841_dsc_diffs.jpg |
| Filesize: | 181.03 KB |
| Title: | |
| Download counter: | 48 |
Selected quotes for multi-quoting: 0
Registered users in this topic
Currently no registered users in this sectionThe statistic shows who was online during the last 5 minutes. Updated every 90 seconds.