>> On a related note, if I don't want to tcp_recv() any more data until
processing the data in B->C, can I just postpone calling tcp_recved()?
> No. That will eventually result in no more data being passed to your
callback as it will prevent the sender from transmitting more, but not on a
timesca
>>> Does this make any sort of sense?
>>
>> Not really. I can't see how a bug in that code would cause the
>> symptoms you describe. My guess is that the optimisation is
>> causing a change in timing that leads to some race condition being
>> exposed. E.g. if it is running faster there is more chan
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a timing issue.
We are (currently) running lwIP 1.3.2 with FreeRTOS 4.8.0, on SAM7_GCC
(GCC/ARM7_AT91SAM7S) with EMAC code from lwip_Demo_Rowley_ARM7.
We don't override LWIP_CHKSUM, so the standard (Version #1)
lwip_standard_chksum from inet_chksum.c is th
On 22/11/2011 19:57, Stephen Cleary wrote:
> I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a timing issue.
>
> We are (currently) running lwIP 1.3.2 with FreeRTOS 4.8.0, on
> SAM7_GCC (GCC/ARM7_AT91SAM7S) with EMAC code from
> lwip_Demo_Rowley_ARM7.
Wow. It is on version 7.0.2 now ;o)
>
> We don't
FreeRTOS Info wrote:
Just in case anybody is watching this thread:
As unlikely as this all seems, having previously isolated one file, I
have now isolated it to a single function: lwip_standard_chksum().
I have the entire applicatino running at maximum optimisation, except
this function, and ev
On 22/11/2011 20:13, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
> FreeRTOS Info wrote:
>> Just in case anybody is watching this thread:
>>
>> As unlikely as this all seems, having previously isolated one file, I
>> have now isolated it to a single function: lwip_standard_chksum().
>>
>> I have the entire applicatino
> Wow. It is on version 7.0.2 now ;o)
Yeah. Upgrading is definitely on my TODO list, but you know how it is - 10
different applications, original coder MIA, code is just not production-ready
even though it's in the field, constant feature requests and fire-fighting
prevent stabilization of the
Hi,
I have defined sys_msleep() to vTaskDelay() - (1 tick == 1 ms) in
sys_arch.h, because the default implementation is quite tricky.
However the compiler complains about vTaskDelay() redefinition thus I
had to modify sys.c, see below. Is this modification correct?
As I know, sys_msleep is called
