[Icc-mot] Device x% full

[Jim Fiocca]

Ed, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.  It's just text 
usage, i.e., text_used / text_allocated.  Yes, I'm using paged memory, 
but that comes out of the extcode section and is not accounted for in 
that figure.  If I adjust the text allocation in the linker control 
file, I can verify that 'device usage' tracks accordingly.

I was worried that that number was telling me when I was at the end of 
the 'standard' license and had to buy 'advanced'.  I'm still curious as 
to what that limit is.  Is it total memory (RAM + Flash) = 64K, total 
Flash = 64K, or total Flash in paged memory = 64K (there is 32K of Flash 
in non-paged memory)?

Regards,
 Jim


Edward Karpicz wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I think that this figure is based on nonpaged memory usage only. But 
> it ignores the hole (page window) at 8000-BFFF. For example I have 
> some XDT512 project:
> 1) Target is custom.
> 2) Nonpaged program memory is specified as 0x4000.0x7FFF:0xC000.0xDEFF.
> 3) Paged - 0x380000.0x3F7FFF.
> 4) Map file shows that text area begins at $4000 (__start label). 
> __text_end is at $69C4.
> 5) Paged memory usage is just 17k
> 6) Yet Device full is 26%.
> These 26% can be calculated this way (__text_end - __start )  / 
> (top_addr_of_text - bottom_addr_of_text) = ($69c4-$4000) / 
> ($DEFF-$4000) = ~26% .
>
> Another example. text area usage 5k of nonpaged flash. Device full 
> states 5k/48k=10% usage. Let's add 12k const array so that 5k+12k>16k 
> and both nonpaged pages are used. Device full bumps to >66%. When 
> paging is on and taget is not custom (text area defined as 
> 0x4000.0x7FFF:0xC000.0xFFFF), there's a Device full deadzone between 
> 16k/48k=33% and 32k/48k=66%. You said you had 53%. Was paged memory 
> disabled?
>
> Integer percents are too coarse. There should be at least 2 digits 
> past the dot. Or even better, it should print bytes used in each area 
> (at least just text).
>
> Edward
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fiocca" <jim at fiocca.net>
> To: "Discussion List for ICC08/11/12/16 users. You do NOT need to 
> subscribe toicc-announce if you are a member of this." 
> <icc-mot at imagecraft.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Icc-mot] Device x% full
>
>
>> Now I'm convinced this is a random number generator.  It shot up to 
>> 85%, then 89%, now it's down to 36%.  And my memory usage numbers are 
>> hardly changing at all...
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> Jim Fiocca wrote:
>>> If you're referring to the 64K limitation, then standard.  Though 
>>> I'm not sure what the 64K refers to - is it total memory (RAM + 
>>> Flash), total Flash, or total Flash in paged memory (there is 32K of 
>>> Flash in non-paged memory).  But no matter what the definition, the 
>>> numbers below come nowhere near 53%.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> Barry Callahan wrote:
>>>> Are you using standard or advanced?
>>>>
>>>> Jim Fiocca wrote:
>>>>> ICC12 V7 question:
>>>>>
>>>>> At the end of a command-line link, I get this message:
>>>>> > Device 53% full.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the map file, I see I am using 1K bytes of RAM (out of 
>>>>> 8K) and 17K bytes of Flash (out of 128K) [S12E128 part].  So what 
>>>>> is that message based on?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Icc-mot mailing list
>>>>> Icc-mot at imagecraft.com
>>>>> http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Icc-mot mailing list
>>>> Icc-mot at imagecraft.com
>>>> http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Icc-mot mailing list
>>> Icc-mot at imagecraft.com
>>> http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icc-mot mailing list
>> Icc-mot at imagecraft.com
>> http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Icc-mot mailing list
> Icc-mot at imagecraft.com
> http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot