Exception documentation is still poor!


#1

Both “ARM” Exceptions, and “RTK” Exceptions.

See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2026&p=7567#p7567
And: viewtopic.php?t=314

See also: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1854&p=7569#p7569


#2

bump
stil poor!


#3

and “poor” is being generous… :angry:


#4

Still Poor! :angry:

See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3535


#5

Hiya,

I’m with you on this.

It would actually be nice to get any exception information numbers out of the blasted device - especially when using M2M studio…

M2M Studio Target Management Perspective has the great feature of dropping the head of the exception trace dump - so all you know is that an exception occurred - but neither what type or where in the code. Not only that, the Heap Dump also doesn’t decode the function addresses, so even when you can glean some info from the dump, you don’t know where it happened.

Back to the old version of OpenAT to see if MoKa can catch the exception info…

EDIT: Well, I did get the exception number using M2M studio after after I fiddled (inadvertently) with the RTK level traces. In my setup, the exception info at the beginning of a trace dump appears to come out on the High Level Interrupt flow, trace level 1. Now all I have to do is get the stackdump traces back…

Not that the number (155) tells you anything anyway. I eventually tracked it down to doing log(x), where x sometimes happened to be zero. Maybe 155 is an invalid operation or out of range error?

ciao, Dave


#6

It seems that the information is available somewhere: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4170&p=16466#p16461

So why is it not in any easily accessible place?? :unamused: :angry:


#7

New Year - same old problem :unamused:

wavecom.com/modules/movie/sc … 970#p17970


#8

Bump - see: https://forum.sierrawireless.com/t/q24pl001-657f00gg-exceptions/4353/3


#9

Another 9 months - still no improvement! :angry:

forum.sierrawireless.com/viewto … 827#p20796

:unamused:


#10

Why is this such a difficult question? I guess it must be a political question. Perhaps if the numbers are translatable, users will be able to pin-point errors to firmware functions not just the application. But surely that’s a good thing, we all want them fixed after all? It does seem strange the lack of response on this.
And if we can debug fatal errors in our code, we would use less FAE’s time … no?


#11

The problems keep recurring: https://forum.sierrawireless.com/t/what-is-mean/4083/2


#12

Still no action on this: https://forum.sierrawireless.com/t/rtk-codes-documentation/4778/3

And now it seems that SiWi want to start charging for their documentation: sierrawireless.com/productsa … orial.aspx

:open_mouth: :angry:


#13

Bump: https://forum.sierrawireless.com/t/how-to-determine-rtk-exception-from-number/5490/4