| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wahorger
Joined: 13 Oct 2014
Posts: 1226
Location: Morrison, CO, USA
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:48 pm Post subject: Compiler offset addresses missing(?) |
 |
|
I am doing some debug on the 64-bit code, looking for issues of my own making. I encountered an error that give me an error:
| Quote: | Argument number 2 of WINIO@ (continuation 2)
should be a 32 bit integer at address 1c0088e9
Within file C-MASTER.exe
in NEWMAIN at address 234
in CMAIN at address d06
|
My issue: I have the Listing file, and was looking for the offset, but found the following:
| Quote: | 0138 subroutine newmain(init_in_sc) AT f66
0139 include 'my_windows.ins' AT f66
0140 C_EXTERNAL CLEARWIN_PARAM@ '__clearwin_param'(INSTRING,INSTRING) AT f66
0141 include 'cmaster_routines.ins' AT f66
.
.
.
To the executable code
.
.
.
0190 screen_title = 'C-Master' AT f66
0191 AT f66
0192 AT f66
0193 call CLEARTYPE_WINDOW_PARAMETERS(local_window_parameters) AT f66
0194 if(run_once) then AT f66
0195 run_once = .false. AT f66
0196 call set_all_max_lines@(6000L) AT f66
0197 call flush_memory_buffers ! send lingering internal data to the appropriate file(s) AT f66
0198 CALL CLEARTYPE_WINDOW_PARAMETERS(local_window_parameters) AT f66
0199 local_window_parameters%sc_function_address = loc(main_window_one_time_init) ! specialized init for the first window in the "set" AT f66
0200 endif AT f66
|
The offset for each statement does not change. I looked at a number of other compilations in 64-bit, and the same condition exists, where the offset of the line of executable code is incorrect. I do like the indication of the continuation line being in error, but I cannot tell if it was a lower level routine that is being also counted, or if it is in the code as indicated. If the latter, this makes no sense, so I am confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8018
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This does suggest that /LIST is not working properly. I will put this down for investigation.
In the meantime try /EXPLIST to see if you can work out the offsets from the assembler listing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wahorger
Joined: 13 Oct 2014
Posts: 1226
Location: Morrison, CO, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a mixed bag.
Yes, /EXPlist does give me a better idea of where it is.
Unfortunately, the assembly code is physically separated from the actual source code. So while I can use this, it is a difficult slog to find the appropriate line in a set of lines all of whom are created similarly and differ in only one or two elements.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8018
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OK. If you use /DEBUG then that may provide a line number for the failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wahorger
Joined: 13 Oct 2014
Posts: 1226
Location: Morrison, CO, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, /DEBUG appears to give the line number within the file.
Just an FYI...
It might just be my system, but if I have /EXPLIST turned on as well, compilation is glacially slow.
Going back to /LIST goes faster (most of the time), but still really slow.
I modified the MAKE to allow me to select whether or not a listing file is created. For the production version, I'll have to balance speed with details. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8018
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The behaviour of FTN95 /64 /LIST has been greatly improved (maybe even fixed) for the next release. The same fix also provides the correct alignment for /EXPLIST.
In the meantime the offsets are only provided when /DEBUG is also applied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
