Static variables must be used in "for" loop ?

[Frelon]

Hello,

In my program, I noticed that when I use a for loop, it doesn't exit the loop unless the variable is declared static! The data in that variable seems to be inconsistent: it's impossible to check the variable's content in the debugger if that variable is not declared static, it shows *unknown error Ò100428Ó* in the expressions window and "No local variable" in the "Variables Live" section of the debugger.

Not working example: stay in the loop infinitely

int i;

for(i = 0; i < 10; i++)

{

    DoSomething();

}

Working example: loop 10 times then exit

static int i;

for(i = 0; i < 10; i++)

{

    DoSomething();

}

I use CodeWarrior for ColdFire, Version 7.0. build 15.

Maybe it's just a project setting, I don't find which one.

Thanks,

Frelon

[pedrogonzagadas]

Hi people,

I had the same problem who Tom . The instruction who James answered   "Try Un-checking - Target Settings Pannel \  Coldfire Processor \Registor Coloring."

Worked for me too!

Pedro Gonzaga .

[RichTestardi]

Are you running CW7.0?  I noticed this when I upgraded from CW6.4 to CW7.0.

Most local variables were not displayed in the debugger, and I got the same error message.

The fix for me was to disable Register Coloring in the project settings, under Code Generation -> ColdFire Processor.

I hope it works for you.

-- Rich

[RichTestardi]

However, I should add that in my case, the code behaved correctly -- only the debugger was confused.

So your issue might be different.

[Frelon]

For the local variables, you were right Rich, disabling Register Coloring allows me to see local variables, thanks!

For the "for loop" problem, I found the solution too: I previously added a delay loop like this in my code:

   asm
   {
      move  #4, d7
     
   Loop1uSec:
        
      subi #1, d7
      bne   Loop1uSec
   }
That code worked well, but it gives me the "for loop" bug later. I replaced that assembler function with one in C and now it works fine.

Frelon

[CompilerGuru]

Sounds like a stack overflow, could that be?
Or maybe the inproper use of different calling conventions.

Daniel