Author Topic: memcpy() and volatile  (Read 6833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2024, 09:16:41 am »
this is where it all happens. The variables under runtime now all set static are the ones that love to just come and go. The main escapade is with torque_target  as a simple int32_t it would be reset to 0 on certain runs, the same when making it volatile, as a static it works. I thought a variable declared in a C file was implicitly static and at any rate it cannot be modified from outside that file unless declared in a header file as extern. Yet when I forcibly state it, it works.

Code: [Select]
/*
* motor_control.c
*
* Created: 16/02/2024 13:44:02
*  Author: cbsadmin
*/

#include <math.h>
#include "samc21.h"
#include "functions.h"
#include "rtc.h"
#include "system.h"
#include "canopen.h"
#include "canopen_object_dictionary.h"
#include "canopen_sdo.h"
#include "canopen_pdo.h"
#include "canopen_dsp402.h"

#include "device_jetnado_ecu.h"
#include "motor_control.h"



/***************** CONSTANTS **************************/

const int16_t min_belt_speed_setting = 5   ; // if changed update min_motor_rpm
const int16_t mpm_to_rpm               = 38  ; // if changed update min_motor_rpm
const int32_t motor_current_limit = 28000 ;
const int16_t torque_limit = 1000 ;
const int32_t starting_current = 2250 ;
const int32_t av_speed_factor = 10 ;
const int32_t av_torque_factor = 20 ;
const float tacho_length_m           = 0.0160792 ; // was 0.00788  // m 12 pulses/rev
//float tacho_length_m           = 0.0080396 ; // was 0.00788  // m 12 pulses/rev


////////////////////////////////// RUNTIME VARIABLES /////////////////////////

static int32_t motor_user_current_limit  ; // user current limit
static int32_t speed_actual   ;
static int32_t torque_actual  ;
static int32_t av_speed_actual ;
static int32_t av_torque_actual ;
static int32_t voltage ;
static int32_t torque_target  ;
static int32_t speed_target   ;

static int32_t starting_torque ;
static int32_t direction ;



volatile time_recrord_t time_record ;

void motor_control(uint16_t timeout)
{
static volatile uint32_t last_run = 0 ;

if ((time_ms - last_run) > timeout)
{
last_run = time_ms ;
// start code body

//***************************************************** safe to move ***********************************************

voltage = (server_objects[DRIVE_VOLTAGE_ACTUAL_VALUE].value[1] + server_objects[DRIVE_VOLTAGE_ACTUAL_VALUE].value[2]) / 2 ;

if ( ENABLE_UNDERVOLTAGE_LOCKOUT && (voltage > 0 ) && (voltage < MINIMUM_SUPPLY_VOLTAGE ) )
ecu_data.low_voltage = 1 ;
else ecu_data.low_voltage = 0 ;

if (network_status[MASTER_NODE_ID].heartbeat_present ) ecu_data.comms_failure = 0 ; // comms check
else ecu_data.comms_failure = 1 ;

if (GUARD_SAFETY_ENABLE) ecu_data.guard_open = !pin_read(guard_switch_pin) ; // Update guard switch status

if(!pin_read(estop_pin))  // if e-stop pressed update ecu flag
{
ecu_data.estop_pressed = 1 ;
ecu_data.stopped = 1       ;
}

// Ascertain motor safe to move
if (ecu_data.comms_failure || ecu_data.low_voltage || ecu_data.estop_pressed || ecu_data.guard_open )
{
ecu_data.safe_to_move = 0 ;

torque_target         = 0 ;
ecu_data.starting     = 0 ;
ecu_data.stopping     = 0 ;
ecu_data.running      = 0 ;
ecu_data.stopped      = 1 ;
}
else
{
ecu_data.safe_to_move = 1 ;
}

// end safety checks *************************************************************

ecu_data.airPressureCurrent = (uint8_t) (ret_map( adc_result[1][6] , 10 , 4000 , 0 , 160 ) ) ;

ecu_data.distance = (int32_t) (cable_taco_counts * tacho_length_m * 10) ;

//ecu_data.cable_speed = ecu_data.cable_speed ;

if (ecu_data.enabled)
{
speed_actual =  ( ret_absolute_value_int(server_objects[VELOCITY_ACTUAL_VALUE].value[1])
+ ret_absolute_value_int(server_objects[VELOCITY_ACTUAL_VALUE].value[2]) ) / 2 ;

av_speed_actual = (av_speed_actual * (av_speed_factor - 1) + speed_actual) / av_speed_factor ;

torque_actual = (ret_absolute_value_int( server_objects[TORQUE_ACTUAL_VALUE].value[1] )
+ ret_absolute_value_int(server_objects[TORQUE_ACTUAL_VALUE].value[2]) ) / 2  ;

av_torque_actual =  (av_torque_actual * (av_torque_factor - 1) + torque_actual ) / av_torque_factor ;

ecu_data.cable_speed = (int8_t) average_cable_speed ;
ecu_data.speed = (int8_t) (speed_actual / mpm_to_rpm ) ; // sent to HMI
ecu_data.torque = av_torque_actual * motor_user_current_limit / motor_current_limit ;
}


if (!ecu_data.enabled )
{
ecu_data.torque = 0 ;
ecu_data.speed = 0 ;

motor_user_current_limit = (motor_current_limit * hmi_cmd.torqueSetpoint) / 1000U  ; // workout unity fraction of max current and multiply by max current

server_objects[NOMINAL_CURRENT].value[1] = (motor_current_limit * hmi_cmd.torqueSetpoint) / 10000U ; // update nominal current in units of cA
server_objects[NOMINAL_CURRENT].value[2] = (motor_current_limit * hmi_cmd.torqueSetpoint) / 10000U ;

starting_torque = starting_current * 1000 / motor_user_current_limit ;

speed_actual = 0 ;
}

// end code body
}
}

void speed_update(uint16_t timeout)
{
static uint32_t last_run = 0 ;
static int32_t speed_error   ;
static int32_t adjustment ;

if (ecu_data.enabled && ((time_ms - last_run) > timeout))
{
last_run = time_ms ;
// start code body
// speed control

speed_target = (int32_t) (hmi_cmd.speedSetpoint * mpm_to_rpm) ;
// Direction setup
if (speed_target > 0)
direction = 1 ;

if (speed_target < 0) // if a reverse speed has been set
{
speed_target *= -1 ;     // make the target speed positive again but
direction  = -1 ; // set the reverse factor used to invert the final torque settings
}

if(speed_target > 0)
{
ecu_data.running = 1 ;

speed_error = ret_absolute_value_int(speed_actual - speed_target)  ;
//adjustment =  ret_map_int(speed_error, 1, 1000, 0, 100 )  ;

if (speed_error < 200) adjustment  = 1 ;
if ((speed_error > 199) && (speed_error < 500)) adjustment = 5 ;
if (speed_error > 499) adjustment = 20 ;

if (speed_actual > speed_target)   // slow down
torque_target -=  adjustment ;

if (speed_actual < speed_target )  // speed up
torque_target += adjustment ;

if (torque_target > torque_limit)
torque_target = torque_limit ;

if (torque_target < 0 )
torque_target = 0 ;
}
/*
if (speed_target == 0)
torque_target = 0 ;
*/
server_objects[TARGET_TORQUE].value[1] = (int32_t) (torque_target * direction * -1) ;
server_objects[TARGET_TORQUE].value[2] = (int32_t) (torque_target * direction     ) ;

// end code body
}
}



void ecu_data_initialization(void)
{
ecu_data.stopped      = 1 ;
/*
ecu_data.cable_speed  = 0 ;

ecu_data.stopping     = 0 ;
ecu_data.starting     = 0 ;
ecu_data.running      = 0 ;
ecu_data.enabled      = 0 ;
ecu_data.user_enable  = 0 ;
ecu_data.safe_to_move = 0 ;


av_speed_actual = 0 ;
av_torque_actual = 0 ;*/
}



void motor_ds402_control(uint16_t run_interval)
{
static uint32_t last_run_time = 0 ;

if ((time_ms - last_run_time) > run_interval)
{
last_run_time = time_ms ;

// motor power enable
if ( ecu_data.user_enable && !ecu_data.enabled && ecu_data.safe_to_move)
{
dsp402_power_on( 1) ;
dsp402_power_on( 2) ;

if (network_status[1].powered_up && network_status[2].powered_up)
{
ecu_data.enabled = 1 ;
}
}

// motor power disable
if (ecu_data.stopped && ecu_data.enabled && !ecu_data.user_enable)
{
dsp402_power_off( 1) ;
dsp402_power_off( 2) ;

if (network_status[1].powered_down && network_status[2].powered_down)
{
ecu_data.enabled = 0 ;
ecu_data.running = 0 ;
}
}
}
}



void motor_start(uint16_t run_interval)
{
static uint32_t last_run_time = 0 ;

//starting_torque = starting_current_mA / 28 ;

if (ecu_data.enabled && !ecu_data.running && !network_status[0].powering_down && ((time_ms - last_run_time) > run_interval))
{
// start code body
if ( !ecu_data.starting && (speed_target > 0) )
{
ecu_data.starting = 1 ;
ecu_data.stopped = 0 ;
ecu_data.stopping = 0 ;
torque_target = starting_torque ;
}

// Motor starting COULD BENEFIT FROM USING START BUTTON TO OVER RIDE AND FOR TORQUE INCREASE
if ( ecu_data.starting && (speed_actual < speed_target)
&& (torque_target < torque_limit)  )
{
torque_target += 10 ;
}

// Switch from starting to running
if ( ecu_data.starting &&  ( speed_actual > ( min_belt_speed_setting * mpm_to_rpm ) ) )
{
ecu_data.running = 1 ;
ecu_data.starting = 0 ;
}

server_objects[TARGET_TORQUE].value[1] = (int32_t) (torque_target * direction * -1) ;
server_objects[TARGET_TORQUE].value[2] = (int32_t) (torque_target * direction     ) ;

// end code body
last_run_time = time_ms ;
}
}



void user_button_ctrl(uint16_t run_interval)
{
static uint32_t last_run_time = 0 ;

if ((time_ms - last_run_time) > run_interval)
{
// start code body

if (hmi_cmd.machineStart) // User enabling
{
ecu_data.user_enable = 1 ;
ecu_data.cable_stall = 0 ;
ecu_data.belt_slip = 0 ;
}

if (hmi_cmd.machineStop) // User disabling
{
ecu_data.user_enable = 0 ;
}

// end code body
last_run_time = time_ms ;
}
}



void motor_stopping(uint16_t run_interval)
{
static uint32_t last_run_time = 0 ;

if ((time_ms - last_run_time) > run_interval)
{
time_record.last_stop = time_ms ;
// start code body

// Stopping
if ( (ecu_data.running || ecu_data.starting) && !ecu_data.user_enable && !ecu_data.stopped )
{
time_record.last_stopping = time_ms ;

ecu_data.stopping = 1 ;
ecu_data.running  = 0 ;
ecu_data.starting = 0 ;
}

if (ecu_data.stopping)
{
// Ramp torque down
if (torque_target >= 200)
{
torque_target -= 20 ;
}
else // stop!
{

torque_target  = 0 ;
ecu_data.stopping = 0 ;
ecu_data.stopped  = 1 ;
}
}

server_objects[TARGET_TORQUE].value[1] = (int32_t) (torque_target * direction * -1) ;
server_objects[TARGET_TORQUE].value[2] = (int32_t) (torque_target * direction     ) ;

// end code body
}
}



void belt_slip_detection(uint16_t run_interval , uint16_t slip_detection_grace , float belt_slip_factor)
{
static uint32_t last_run_time = 0 ;

if (ENABLE_SLIP_DETECTION && ENABLE_TACHO_OUTPUT && ((time_ms - last_run_time) > run_interval))
{
last_run_time = time_ms ;
// code body

static int16_t belt_slip_time   = 0 ;

uint16_t grace_step = slip_detection_grace / run_interval ;

if (!grace_step) grace_step = 1 ;

if ((( (float) ecu_data.cable_speed / (float)(speed_actual / mpm_to_rpm) ) < belt_slip_factor)
&& ecu_data.running )
{
belt_slip_time += run_interval ;

if (belt_slip_time > slip_detection_grace)
{
ecu_data.belt_slip = 1 ;
ecu_data.starting = 0 ;
ecu_data.running = 0 ;
ecu_data.stopping = 0 ;
ecu_data.stopped = 1 ;
ecu_data.user_enable = 0 ;
torque_target = 0 ;

belt_slip_time = 0 ;
}
}
else if (belt_slip_time >= grace_step)
{
belt_slip_time -= grace_step ;
}
}
}


//const float stall_belt_speed_factor  = 0.5 ;
void cable_stall_detection(uint16_t run_interval , int16_t min_cable_speed)
{
static uint32_t last_run_time = 0 ;

if (ENABLE_STALL_DETECTION && ENABLE_TACHO_OUTPUT && (time_ms - last_run_time) > run_interval)
{
last_run_time = time_ms ;
// code body

if ((ecu_data.cable_speed < min_cable_speed) && ecu_data.running && torque_target > 990 )
{
ecu_data.cable_stall = 1 ;
ecu_data.starting = 0 ;
ecu_data.running = 0 ;
ecu_data.stopping = 0 ;
ecu_data.stopped = 1 ;
ecu_data.user_enable = 0 ;
torque_target = 0 ;
}
}
}
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19801
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2024, 10:23:38 am »
So a new problem cropped up, same thing, variable being ignored at random. Making it "static" solves this. The variable in only used in this one C file. So why look at code anywhere else to determine it's usefulness ?

Making it static doesn't solve it: it hides it. Disturbing any other piece of the code/compiler could unhide it.

As others have said, it strongly looks like your code isn't stating what you think it is stating. That contention is supported by this statement of yours:

Quote
OK so the original function I copied off the net used "char" or "int"  (can't remember), my compiler complained, so I changed to uint8_t to shut it up
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline brucehoult

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4106
  • Country: nz
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2024, 10:28:57 am »
Using uint8_t also makes the code less efficient because on a 32 bit machine it has to add (at least) an extra `uxtb` (or `and #0xFF` etc) to the loop.

What does this mean? I'm interested. Are you saying that 16 bits is the smallest a 32 bit (ARM) machine will work with anyway? I am aware that an ARM0+ has the ability to transfer two peices af data on it's 32 bit bus at once due to the thumb instruction set (and that is as clever as I get) so I tend to not oversize variables where practical.

No, 32 bits is the smallest size 32 bit Arm machines (or MIPS, RISC-V, Power, SPARC etc) have arithmetic operations for.

If you specify that some variable can only have values from 0 to 255, and then you add 1 to it, then the 32 bit add (the only kind it has) can result in an answer of 256, and extra work is needed to check for that and convert overflowed values back into range.
 

Offline eutectique

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 413
  • Country: be
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2024, 10:31:07 am »
Compilers are rarely broken. [...] As we never get any code, it isn't very helpful to reply to these threads.

Agree. That was me attempting to instigate the OP to post a minimal piece of code showing what is included where, declared where, and defined where. Anything at all.
 

Offline eutectique

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 413
  • Country: be
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2024, 10:36:47 am »
These are the compiler options I don't know if I need the first two, for a micro controller application they sound like trouble.

If you are talking about -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections, they are extremely useful for MCUs with limited resources.
2111105-0
 

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2024, 11:24:11 am »
These are the compiler options I don't know if I need the first two, for a micro controller application they sound like trouble.

If you are talking about -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections, they are extremely useful for MCUs with limited resources.
(Attachment Link)

So they eliminate dead code. Well all of my code is bare metal written by me. So are we talking about actual statements in my code that are deemed unnecessary or is this cleaning up code generated by the compiler? Basically will try to optimize out things?

What effect does the debug type of compile have? this was set. I have now changed it to release.
 

Online Andy Watson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2099
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2024, 11:38:27 am »
Code: [Select]

void motor_control(uint16_t timeout)
{
static volatile uint32_t last_run = 0 ;


This line does not make sense. Declaring last_run as volatile does not make it global. Variables defined within a function are local to that function.
 

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2024, 11:41:30 am »
Code: [Select]

void motor_control(uint16_t timeout)
{
static volatile uint32_t last_run = 0 ;


This line does not make sense. Declaring last_run as volatile does not make it global. Variables defined within a function are local to that function.

Correct, that variable is static to that function, every function has the exact same variable used to determine after how many ms is should next run. time_ms is incremented by one every ms from the systic timer.

I made it volatile probably unnecessarily to ensure it was not optimized out.
 

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #58 on: April 10, 2024, 11:56:23 am »
Using uint8_t also makes the code less efficient because on a 32 bit machine it has to add (at least) an extra `uxtb` (or `and #0xFF` etc) to the loop.

What does this mean? I'm interested. Are you saying that 16 bits is the smallest a 32 bit (ARM) machine will work with anyway? I am aware that an ARM0+ has the ability to transfer two peices af data on it's 32 bit bus at once due to the thumb instruction set (and that is as clever as I get) so I tend to not oversize variables where practical.

No, 32 bits is the smallest size 32 bit Arm machines (or MIPS, RISC-V, Power, SPARC etc) have arithmetic operations for.

If you specify that some variable can only have values from 0 to 255, and then you add 1 to it, then the 32 bit add (the only kind it has) can result in an answer of 256, and extra work is needed to check for that and convert overflowed values back into range.


You mean performance I may as well use int32_t throughout unless I have concerns about RAM usage.
 

Offline eutectique

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 413
  • Country: be
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #59 on: April 10, 2024, 12:04:27 pm »
So they eliminate dead code. Well all of my code is bare metal written by me. So are we talking about actual statements in my code that are deemed unnecessary or is this cleaning up code generated by the compiler? Basically will try to optimize out things?

I am pretty sure you love your hand-crafted well-thought-out code (who doesn't!) and would despise anyone who dares to call it "dead code" ;)

Normally, the compiler generates the single .text section for code (and constants, does not matter now) and the single .data section for variables. The linker then places these sections as needed by the steering file. The consequence -- everything which is a function or a variable, will end up in your RAM/ROM on your MCU. Think of STM32 HAL, for example. You only use SPI, and still several kilobytes of flash are wasted for 64-bit division function calculating UART baud rate.

-ffunction-sections instructs the compiler to create a separate section for each function, say .text.main, .text.this, .text.that ...  Similarly, -fdata-sections places each variable into its own section. Then comes the linker, with its --gc-sections option. If a function or a variable is not referenced -- it is "dead code" and does not deserve the place in the binary.


What effect does the debug type of compile have? this was set. I have now changed it to release.

No effect whatsoever. Debug information, optimisation, and dead-code elimination are orthogonal concepts. They are controlled by separate options.
 

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2024, 12:14:03 pm »


I am pretty sure you love your hand-crafted well-thought-out code (who doesn't!) and would despise anyone who dares to call it "dead code" ;)



Well it's not a case of loving my code, I try to write efficiently as I don't want the compiler to have to do my job. What I am saying is, are these options likely to lead to any issues? You know like increasing the optimization settings do sometimes.
 

Offline eutectique

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 413
  • Country: be
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2024, 12:24:40 pm »
To the best of my knowledge and experience, -ffunction-sections option works on per-function basis -- a function either makes its way into the final binary, or not. The option does not clip any code from a function itself. It does not re-arrange if() or while() blocks, or similar.
 

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2024, 12:28:06 pm »
Well i have been using them all afternoon with no issue.
 

Online gf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1295
  • Country: de
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2024, 12:55:03 pm »
To the best of my knowledge and experience, -ffunction-sections option works on per-function basis -- a function either makes its way into the final binary, or not. The option does not clip any code from a function itself. It does not re-arrange if() or while() blocks, or similar.

Yes, with --gc-sections, the linker discards only complete sections of a .o file, and only if none of the symbols exported from that section are referenced. Dead (unreachable) code inside functions is eliminated by the compiler.
 

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8243
  • Country: fi
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2024, 12:57:46 pm »
Well it's not a case of loving my code, I try to write efficiently as I don't want the compiler to have to do my job. What I am saying is, are these options likely to lead to any issues? You know like increasing the optimization settings do sometimes.

Neither using these options, or using higher optimization levels, is causing your problems, but you barking at the wrong tree is preventing you from seeing the problems, which are solely in your code, and can only be solved by fixing your code. Compiler and compiler options are all fine, do not touch them.

You should be working hard to find the issue WITHIN YOUR CODE and YOUR CODE ALONE. If you feel like being stuck and getting nowhere, then:
1) SIMPLIFY,
2) REFACTOR, or maybe even
3) START OVER

Others have asked you to post minimum example reproducing your problem. You think it's extra work, but it isn't. It forces you to investigate.

-ffunction-sections and -gc-sections are very useful even if you wrote everything in the codebase. You don't want to be manually commenting out functions you wrote but do not (currently) use to save flash. Let the compiler+linker automate it for you. There are no downsides.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2024, 01:00:18 pm by Siwastaja »
 

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #65 on: April 10, 2024, 01:03:44 pm »
Attached is the entire project.

it is equivalent to about 4% of the bible! Yes I have been going through this code and refining for the last 2 months as part of the development process.

I am not saying that any optimization will be a problem. But as you say my code has an issue and I am trying to move my project forward as I also discover issues. I don't want to hit a brick wall due to some optimization and go round in circles, it is easier to work on working code.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2024, 08:41:57 am by Simon »
 

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8243
  • Country: fi
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #66 on: April 10, 2024, 02:59:01 pm »
I don't want to hit a brick wall due to some optimization

You are not hitting a wall due to compiler optimization. Compiler is doing exactly what you tell it to do. There is no way doing random changes (e.g., adding random keywords to code, or making random changes to compiler settings) would be helpful at all. This is exactly why you are going "in circles". Random changes sometimes seem to help, but problems tend to come back and such changes guide you to wrong conclusions.

You should stop worrying about compiler settings, and use that time to work with the code instead. Strip parts out of it; remove features (e.g., by commenting code out) to reduce number of lines, until you are down to the smallest possible project which still shows the problem. Then you can go through you code line by line, and compare against C standard (or a good book, or even Stack Overflow discussions would be better than nothing) to see if your expectations of what you think it does matches with what it actually does.
 

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8243
  • Country: fi
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #67 on: April 10, 2024, 03:11:40 pm »
Also, while we are focusing on the usage of volatile qualifier and thinking about possible race conditions and failures to do atomic accesses, let's not forget good old memory corruption due to overindexing an array or miscalculating pointers or data sizes (e.g. in memcpy call or similar).

If torque_target is corrupted, then list the symbols in .data and .bss using:
arm-none-eabi-objdump -t firmware.elf | grep "\.data\|\.bss"
objdump sorts by address, so look at variables close (usually before for overindexing) to torque_target. Maybe some buffer which you were unsure about pops up there.

But reducing the code by stripping features is very effective because at some point, you are likely to remove the part that is causing memory corruption. As a side effect, you are creating a minimum example which demonstrates the problem, so even if you finally still need help, people can actually help you without spending weeks looking at your whole project.

The problem is this: posting small excerpts where you think the problem is does not help because the problem likely isn't there. And if you post the whole project, no one has time to go though it. Reduction is thus the key.
 
The following users thanked this post: eutectique

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #68 on: April 10, 2024, 03:24:44 pm »
it is complicated as 2 months of CAN Open code are required to run anything. The vast majority of the code (120'000 chars when I last looked) are simply to get me to a point where I can run a motor.

Alternatively I need to find a way to simulate the issue, at that point though when I substantially change the code the problem may will magically go away but I will still be none the wiser.

I have "The C programming language", it's a brief book. I don't consider it to describe all aspects. The most infuriating thing I find is that all books don't explain how a feature works, the talk about an example that uses it, they get you so far but if there is information out of the scope of that particular example you don't get the information.

One of my most useful books (I have many) is pocket size, it is so useful as it just tells you straight what the syntax is without using long winded examples that you have to infer from.

Is the C standard publicly available?
 

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8243
  • Country: fi
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #69 on: April 10, 2024, 03:25:23 pm »
I can see you have lot of functions where you access an array using a function argument or variable coming from somewhere, without checking the argument. Maybe you are very careful when you are calling such functions, but I strongly suggest you always do runtime checks, it costs a tiny bit of CPU time and flash memory but will save a day.

E.g.
Code: [Select]
void can_exd_filter_setup(Can * instance , uint32_t id , uint8_t filter_element_n , void * variable )
{
can_0_rx_variable_index[filter_element_n + CAN_0_STD_MESSAGE_FILTER_NUM ] = variable ;

Modify to:

Code: [Select]

void panic_fail(int errcode)
{
    // simple error handler for the whole project.
    // print errcode to uart, blink led errcode times, beep a sound, whatever.
}

void can_exd_filter_setup(Can * instance , uint32_t id , uint8_t filter_element_n , void * variable )
{
                if(filter_element_n >= N_ELEM(can_0_rx_variable_index))
                    panic_fail(42);
can_0_rx_variable_index[filter_element_n + CAN_0_STD_MESSAGE_FILTER_NUM ] = variable ;


where N_ELEM() is the classic macro
#define N_ELEM(a) (sizeof (a) / sizeof (a)[0])
 

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8243
  • Country: fi
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #70 on: April 10, 2024, 03:30:08 pm »
it is complicated as 2 months of CAN Open code are required to run anything. The vast majority of the code (120'000 chars when I last looked) are simply to get me to a point where I can run a motor.

Of course this isn't true. Of course you can strip the CAN part out completely and just set the motor control variables manually, from code. Is UI giving a command? Just give that command from the beginning of main() instead. Or after a delay. Now is torque_target still behaving odd? Do you need belt slip detection to run the motor? Probably not, remove, comment out the code completely. And so on and so on. You can always reduce.
 

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8243
  • Country: fi
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2024, 03:37:28 pm »
Here, I quickly found a serious bug which overruns other variables in .bss:

Code: [Select]
    static  int16_t i16_bit_var ;
        ...
switch(number_bytes)
{
case 0x82 :
mymemcpy(&i16_bit_var , &can_data[4] , number_bytes) ;

You are copying 130(!!!) bytes from something that is only 4 bytes long (can_data[4 to 7]), to something that is only 2 bytes long (int16), overrunning the target by 128 bytes.

Always with memcpy, be super careful with the length, and prefer the pattern of using sizeof target as the final parameter, instead of some int n:

mymemcpy(&i16_bit_var, &can_data[4], sizeof i16_bit_var);

Homework: find the rest of such bugs and fix them.

Now you see how changing compiler settings or adding random keywords causes the compiler/linker to place variables in different order, so that something else gets corrupted and the bug seems to move elsewhere, and if you don't test hard enough, or with extremely good luck, the bug can appear completely fixed; but truly isn't. Therefore by doing such changes, you are wasting time.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2024, 03:44:44 pm by Siwastaja »
 

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #72 on: April 10, 2024, 03:39:33 pm »
OK, think I have a copy.
 

Offline golden_labels

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1255
  • Country: pl
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #73 on: April 10, 2024, 03:40:16 pm »
Is C++ better in this respect? I have been trying to get started in it for a long time and it's a natural step.
In that regard: no. It retains all the complexity of C and adds its own. :D

The variable is only defined in motor.c as "volatile int32_t nominal_current".

A function defined in motor.c and declared in motor.h has a line that says:

nominal_current = 28000 ;

The function which sets up other variables too that are possibly also being optimized out but not causing an issue is called in main() before while(1){main program loop}.

A function called control() defined in motor.c and declared in motor.h uses nominal_current in 4 calculations and is called in the while(1) loop in main()

So if I pause after the function has run to set the variable up it has a value of 28000, if I pause in the control() function it's value is now "0".
This means the nominal_current variable is actually not initialized. And then you assign to it 28000. But that assignment may be not atomic, so it’s possible control sees garbage, 0, 28000, or any unexpected value arising from the assignment not being atomic.

volatile imposes an order of operations accessing volatile variables. But doesn’t guarantee operation’s atomicity or visibility, and in particular the expected order may not be seen in multiple threads of execution. Coincidentally this trap is present not only in C or C++, but may also appear in other languages with a similar feature. The definition and behavior or volatile is so muddy, misleading and unreliable, that in fact it’s discouraged in multithreaded code and to be replaced with platform-specific threading features. Not saying you should not use it; but each time you feel the temptation: think thrice.

If you made the variable static const and assigned value of 28000 to it, then the compiler is effectively treating it as if it was a constant.(1) So that would indeed make the issue go away. But I assume your goal was to have it as a variable, right? I quickly looked in the code you provided later and it seems you use it as a constant, though.

The reason for “minimal code reproducing the issue” is not only reader’s convenience, but — more importantly — because in the process of shrinking down the code the culprit is being found and understood.


(1) Modern C also has constexpr, BTW. It’s how one makes “true” constants in C.
People imagine AI as T1000. What we got so far is glorified T9.
 

Offline SimonTopic starter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17840
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: memcpy() and volatile
« Reply #74 on: April 10, 2024, 03:44:35 pm »
Here, I quickly found a serious bug which overruns other variables in .bss:

Code: [Select]
    static  int16_t i16_bit_var ;
        ...
switch(number_bytes)
{
case 0x82 :
mymemcpy(&i16_bit_var , &can_data[4] , number_bytes) ;

You are copying 130(!!!) bytes from something that is only 4 bytes long (can_data[4 to 7]), to something that is only 2 bytes long (int16), overrunning the target by 128 bytes.

Always with memcpy, be super careful with the length, and prefer the pattern of using sizeof target as the final parameter, instead of some int n:

mymemcpy(&i16_bit_var, &can_data[4], sizeof i16_bit_var);

Homework: find the rest of such bugs and fix them.

Now you see how changing compiler settings or adding random keywords causes the compiler/linker to place variables in different order, so that something else gets corrupted and the bug seems to move elsewhere. Therefore by doing such changes, you are wasting time.

oh shit thanks, yes that should have a number_bytes &= 0x0F ; at the start of every case.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf