> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 11:11 -0800, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
>> I agree! The optimization away from debug does code reuse, so it the
>> program counter really wanders around the address space. You were
>> probably
>> trying to set a break point on some point where the code "wandered away"
>> from that particular point in the source code, so it really didn't know
>> where to put the breakpoint. It's an interesting optimization. Pretty
>> much
>> turns your code into spaghetti.
>
> I find that if I have the room, while developing, I always turn pretty
> much all of the more "fancy" optimizations off. It just gets too
> frustrating trying to figure out whether the issue you're seeing is
> because of something you did yourself, or something fancy the compiler
> is doing to optimize things.
>
> Certain optimizations are safe from a debug point of view, but some as
> you've described can REALLY result in "weird" behaviour.
>
> Of course one may not have the luxury of turning optimizations off (i.e.
> chip is close to full). It's for reasons like that that I always try to
> prototype on the absolute largest reasonable part possible.
>
> TTYL


I agree. I've also put compiler flags in my code to disable sections that
work so I can get the resulting nonoptimized code small enough to debug
other sections.

Harold


-- 
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist