WARNING: (374) ORDER command could not be obeyed for section STACK
Alastair
I am new to Google news groups, so hello.
I am an embedded C programmer of some experience, but I have come
accross a build error, while using MCC68K (Microtec C Compiler for
68000 series). I cannot figure out the exact reason for the error, and
I cannot seem to find any information on the error from documentation
that I have or from google search. So I have come here!
Here is a copy of the the last few lines before the linker error:
Linking :
1 file(s) copied.
abisscan.obl
ber.obl
bistfunc.obl
control.obl
debug.obl
defs.obl
lapb.obl
layer2.obl
q703.obl
q704.obl
schedule.obl
x25.obl
WARNING: (374) ORDER command could not be obeyed for section STACK
Errors: 0, Warnings: 1
The compilation of all my C and H files is ok, but during the link
stage I get the warning as shown above.
If I remove the last changes that I made, then the error goes away.
However there seems to be nothing wrong with the code that I have added
(a simple static string array, the kind of which I have added many
times before).
I seem to remember having this problem once a long time ago, but I was
not experienced enough to deal with it - it seems nothing has changed!
Can anyone tell me why I get this error?, or where (what web site /
manual) I can get some information on this error. (I have looked at the
Microtec web site, but it is difficult to search for such a specific
topic).
Thanks for any help.
Best regards,
Alastair
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> I am new to Google news groups, so hello.
Please read this first: <URL:http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
> I am an embedded C programmer of some experience, but I have come
> accross a build error, while using MCC68K (Microtec C Compiler for
> 68000 series). I cannot figure out the exact reason for the error, and
> I cannot seem to find any information on the error from documentation
> that I have or from google search. So I have come here!
This group is for discussing the C language, not problems with
particular tools or platforms.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
Alastair
I feel that this is related to the C language as it is C code that I
change to get the compile error. Whether it is a limit of the tools I
am using, or there is some obscure error with my coding that cuases
this, I am not certain.
But ok, point taken, I'll find somewhere else.
Thanks for your help,
Alastair
Roberto Waltman
>change to get the compile error. Whether it is a limit of the tools I
>am using, or there is some obscure error with my coding that cuases
>this, I am not certain.
No, it is not. It has to do with how a particular toolchain processes
your code. (And that was not a compile error, but a linker warning.)
In any case, more appropriate forums would be comp.arch.embedded or
comp.sys.m68k - You may find there somebody familiar with the same
tools you are using.
You may also try undoing all your changes an reapplying them one by
one, this may shed some light on what the root cause is.
Good luck!
Roberto Waltman
[ Please reply to the group, ]
[ return address is invalid. ]
Chuck F.
>
> I feel that this is related to the C language as it is C code
> that I change to get the compile error. Whether it is a limit of
> the tools I am using, or there is some obscure error with my
> coding that cuases this, I am not certain.
>
> But ok, point taken, I'll find somewhere else.
You failed to quote, as previously instructed. Further
instructions in my sig. below. Do not fail to read and follow
them. Then you may be able to use the broken Google interface to
Usenet.
IIRC you had some sort of embedded system problem.
comp.arch.embedded might be a better fit.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Alastair
along with it, since I'm new.
Thanks,
Alastair
Flash Gordon
> ok... I don't remember being "instructed" to do anything,
You were pointed at http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ tells you to quote
what you are replying to, how to do it, and why it is required.
> but I'll go
> along with it, since I'm new.
Then DO SO. You have just replied to a message pointing out the need to
provide context saying you would go along but yet again FAILED to
provide context. To make matters worse, you did not even do it as a
reply to the message you were replying to, so even if people happen to
have the entire thread they won't be able to tell easily what you are
replying to (I deduced it because, by chance, I happen to have just seen
a post talking about you having been instructed to provide context).
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.
Keith Thompson
This is not a Google newsgroup, it's a Usenet newsgroup. Usenet has
existed for decades (I think it predates the Internet).
groups.google.com is merely an *interface* to Usenet, and in many ways
an inferior one. (Google also provides some of its own non-Usenet
groups via the same interface.)
Most of us read and write to Usenet through an NNTP interface, which
works very well, but the Google interface encourages its users to post
in ways that cause serious problems for the rest of us.
Your misunderstanding is quite understandable, since Google seems to
go out of its way to blur the distinction.
See <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> for more information.
> I am an embedded C programmer of some experience, but I have come
> accross a build error, while using MCC68K (Microtec C Compiler for
> 68000 series). I cannot figure out the exact reason for the error, and
> I cannot seem to find any information on the error from documentation
> that I have or from google search. So I have come here!
As others have pointed out, we can't help you with this problem. Even
though you're programming in C, it doesn't appear to be a problem with
the C programming language. You'll have better luck in another
newsgroup.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Emmanuel Delahaye
> I am an embedded C programmer of some experience, but I have come
> accross a build error, while using MCC68K (Microtec C Compiler for
> 68000 series).
<way off-topic>
Lucky you. It happens that I have used this compiler for a while, but to
be honnest, I feel a little rusty about it...
> Here is a copy of the the last few lines before the linker error:
> Linking :
> 1 file(s) copied.
> abisscan.obl
> ber.obl
> bistfunc.obl
> control.obl
> debug.obl
> defs.obl
> lapb.obl
> layer2.obl
> q703.obl
> q704.obl
> schedule.obl
> x25.obl
> WARNING: (374) ORDER command could not be obeyed for section STACK
> Errors: 0, Warnings: 1
> If I remove the last changes that I made, then the error goes away.
> However there seems to be nothing wrong with the code that I have added
> (a simple static string array, the kind of which I have added many
> times before).
A simple static string array can be big enough to kill you stack space
memory or to prevent it to be mapped at the place you wanted to. A check
of the .map should shed some light on your problem.
</>
--
A+
Emmanuel Delahaye
Chuck F.
>
> ok... I don't remember being "instructed" to do anything, but
> I'll go along with it, since I'm new.
The first response to your original post, by Mr. Smorgrav, included
the following:
Quote:
">> I am new to Google news groups, so hello.
Please read this first: <URL:http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>"
Endquote.
And your response, without context, was to his posting. Therefore
you must have seen it and chosen to ignore it, as you have again.
This is apparently either deliberately rude or an attempt to annoy.
Alastair
Chuck F. wrote:
> Alastair wrote:
> >
> > ok... I don't remember being "instructed" to do anything, but
> > I'll go along with it, since I'm new.
>
> The first response to your original post, by Mr. Smorgrav, included
> the following:
>
> Quote:
> ">> I am new to Google news groups, so hello.
>
> Please read this first: <URL:http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>"
> Endquote.
>
> And your response, without context, was to his posting. Therefore
> you must have seen it and chosen to ignore it, as you have again.
> This is apparently either deliberately rude or an attempt to annoy.
>
Ok, I got the wrong reply again becuase I am still getting used to the
layout here, and I'm sorry, but I missed that very first line with the
link (it was in the middle of my message context! - but I see now that
that is the normal...).
Anyway, its nice to have such a warm welcome... thanks.
Alastair
> be honnest, I feel a little rusty about it...
>
> memory or to prevent it to be mapped at the place you wanted to. A check
> of the .map should shed some light on your problem.
>
Hi Emmanuel,
Appreciate the information, I will look at the .map file.
I am now moving this query to other newsgropups...
Thanks.
Flash Gordon
<snip>
> Ok, I got the wrong reply again becuase I am still getting used to the
> layout here, and I'm sorry, but I missed that very first line with the
> link (it was in the middle of my message context! - but I see now that
> that is the normal...).
>
> Anyway, its nice to have such a warm welcome... thanks.
Getting it wrong is only a problem when you fail to learn after it is
pointed out. In this case, the biggest problem is that Google does the
wrong thing by default making it hard for newcomers such as yourself. I
would recommend you complain at Google and also, if you can find it and
its still open, respond to their survey to say you want them to quote
the message by default.
Welcome to the group. Bring your C questions here (as opposed to
implementation specifics) and people will be happy to help with them.
That can include questions like, "is <whatever> part of C?" since,
although we might not know it if it is an extension, people here will
certainly know whether or not it is part of C.
Chuck F.
>
... snip ...
>
> Ok, I got the wrong reply again becuase I am still getting used
> to the layout here, and I'm sorry, but I missed that very first
> line with the link (it was in the middle of my message context!
> - but I see now that that is the normal...).
>
> Anyway, its nice to have such a warm welcome... thanks.
>
it makes the further correspondence intelligible to all. Now that
you have gotten the idea you can join in the fun freely, and pick
apart minor and not so minor language goofs. People may not even
notice you are using google.
Now that that is done we can return to your original. From a
glance at the subject, I suspect it will be off-topic. This group
discusses only the standard C language, as defined by the various
ISO standards, and not extensions etc. That way we have a firm
base for any discussions.
Alastair
>You are welcome. Actually the initial trial by fire is helpful if
>it makes the further correspondence intelligible to all. Now that
>you have gotten the idea you can join in the fun freely, and pick
>apart minor and not so minor language goofs. People may not even
>notice you are using google.
>
>Now that that is done we can return to your original. From a
>glance at the subject, I suspect it will be off-topic. This group
>discusses only the standard C language, as defined by the various
>ISO standards, and not extensions etc. That way we have a firm
>base for any discussions.
>
>Getting it wrong is only a problem when you fail to learn after it is
>pointed out. In this case, the biggest problem is that Google does the
>wrong thing by default making it hard for newcomers such as yourself. I
>would recommend you complain at Google and also, if you can find it and
>its still open, respond to their survey to say you want them to quote
>the message by default.
>
>Welcome to the group. Bring your C questions here (as opposed to
>implementation specifics) and people will be happy to help with them.
>That can include questions like, "is <whatever> part of C?" since,
>although we might not know it if it is an extension, people here will
>certainly know whether or not it is part of C.
Guys,
Fair enough.
Thanks
Alastair