CCS C Software and Maintenance Offers
FAQFAQ   FAQForum Help   FAQOfficial CCS Support   SearchSearch  RegisterRegister 

ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CCS does not monitor this forum on a regular basis.

Please do not post bug reports on this forum. Send them to CCS Technical Support

ssd1306 less ram and CCS 5.096

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CCS Forum Index -> General CCS C Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Manu59114



Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Posts: 34
Location: North of France

View user's profile Send private message

ssd1306 less ram and CCS 5.096
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:01 am     Reply with quote

Hello to all

i just updated my compiler version CCS 5.092 to 5.096 and i have a problem on my OLED display. I use the Ttelmah "Less ram driver".
Today, when i compile with the 5.096 version some character are missing on the display.

With 5.092 and old compiler




With 5.096





I don't understand why.... only the Ttelmah driver seems to be affected!
All other serial communication are ok (UART1 UART2)

Thank you for your help
Have a nice day
Best regards
Manu
_________________
CCS + ICD3 + PIC18F46K80
jeremiah



Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 1357

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:20 am     Reply with quote

Well you don't provide your code for how you write your text out, so it's really hard to say. I doubt the driver itself has big issues. It's more likely that you have a bug like array overrun and changing compiler versions changed how that bug was affected.

Can you post code for where you store all the above strings and where you print them?

Also a link to Ttelmah's driver so we can once over it as well.
PCM programmer



Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2020 12:42 pm     Reply with quote

I assume your PIC is the 18F46K80 as shown in your sig line.

Also post
1. The PIC's oscillator frequency.
2. The Vdd voltage for the PIC on your board.
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 19549

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2020 12:44 pm     Reply with quote

What chip are you using?.
There is an updated version for the DSPIC's that defaults to 'signed' .
Now I notice there is a fix in 5.096 for arithmetic wrapping. Might be worth
trying the version that is designed for the DSPIC's. It may be that this
fix means you now have to use this version.
I haven't upgraded yet, so can't test.
temtronic



Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 9245
Location: Greensville,Ontario

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 5:25 am     Reply with quote

What's 'interesting' to me is that between screen #1 and #3, is that 'device #(4680) and big V (1.14) are the same, the rest is wrong.
To me that looks like some data pointer for the 'bad' data has not been properly allocated or setup.
Maybe a 'bank boundary' error ?
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 19549

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:45 am     Reply with quote

Trying to find a project of mine that uses this driver on a PIC18. Having
hassle doing so!...
The ones using PIC24's, all work OK with the new compiler. So will have
to dig for an old prototype. Very Happy

Looking at what you show, how are the strings being built?.
If you look, the V1.14, displays correctly. Is this a RAM string created
by sprintf?. Are the ones that fail standard constants?. "Fred" etc.?.
Wondering if it is the behaviour of 'pass_strings' that has changed.
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 19549

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:38 pm     Reply with quote

OK. I've put together a board with an 18LFs5K22, and a SSD1306 board,
it is constant strings that cause the problem. Will investigate and see if I
can see what is actually happening....
Exactly the same display routine called with a RAM string works, but with
a constant string only displays the first character and a few other bits.
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 19549

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 4:04 am     Reply with quote

OK.
It's not something that can be fixed in the OLED code. It is a compiler issue,
and quite a major one. So use 5.094 to fix it.

I'm reporting it to CCS.
What is happening is that the address used to access the data from the
incoming constant, gets overwritten when I access a constant inside the
routine. Result the next character is read from the wrong location.

On the test string from my example code:

printf(OLED_putc,"\f12345\n\r67890\n\r");

The first character gets sent correctly, and things don't go wrong (since this
doesn't actually access the ROM). But then the second character does
(the '1''), and after this the compiler forgets where it was in the source
string....

Other things don't go wrong, unless they access a ROM pointer inside the
putc. However I've managed to generate the same problem on another
graphic routine that also uses ROM * access..... Sad
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 19549

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:01 am     Reply with quote

Though I said I'd not fix the function, and this is not a 'fix', but a bodge,
I've determined that the registers not being correctly restored are the
pointer held in 0xFF6 & 0xFF7. In the older compilers these are restored
whenever a function uses them. On the new compiler, it instead enters
the routine using them on the next instruction and they get lost....

Code:

//Bodge to save and restore the pointer reg1sters
#word REG1=0xFF6

//Fastest text mode. No support for any control. Standard font only.
void OLED_text(unsigned int8 * text, unsigned int8 number)
{
   unsigned int8 inc_col;
   unsigned int16 temp;
   int16 regtemp;
  regtemp=REG1;// save the pointer register
   //size allows double height & double width
   //Here double height/width
   //for this I have to do two transfers each of double the amount of data
   //and reposition between each
   if (size & DOUBLE_WIDTH)
   {
      inc_col=2;
   }
   else
   {
      inc_col=1;
   }
     
   do {
      temp=(*text)-32;
      if (temp>108)
         temp=0; //block illegal characters         
      temp=((unsigned int16)temp*2)+((unsigned int16)temp*4); //efficient *6
      FONT_line(&font[temp],6); //six characters from the font
      //Now because I'll be in the wrong position (may be one line down)
      //have to re-locate
      O_current_col+=inc_col;
      OLED_address((unsigned int16)O_current_col*4+O_current_col*2,O_current_row);  //ready for next character
      text++; //and select the next character
   } while (--number); //and on to the next character
   REG1=regtemp; //and restore the pointer
}


This should not be used unless you specifically 'must' use 5.096....

Hopefully CCS will have fixed this very soon.
Manu59114



Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Posts: 34
Location: North of France

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:53 pm     Reply with quote

Thank you very much Ttelmah for your help, your time and you excellent full explanation!
Best regards
_________________
CCS + ICD3 + PIC18F46K80
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 19549

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:20 am     Reply with quote

CCS have just emailed me to say this will be fixed in the next compiler
release. So a little in the future, but when this comes out the problem
should disappear. Very Happy
temtronic



Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 9245
Location: Greensville,Ontario

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:28 am     Reply with quote

re: but when this comes out the problem
should disappear.

and....

3 more 'minor' bugs will appear...

just the natural order of things.

Jay
Ttelmah



Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 19549

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am     Reply with quote

Can confirm this is fixed in 5.097.
What the new bus are I haven't yet worked out.
Manu59114



Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Posts: 34
Location: North of France

View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:35 am     Reply with quote

Yes!! i can confirm that is solved!!
Thanks to all,

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
_________________
CCS + ICD3 + PIC18F46K80
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CCS Forum Index -> General CCS C Discussion All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group