DLC86
Fractal Fanatic
Check the global input gain if you're coming from FW13.00I installed 13.02 with no problem, however, my presets suddenly have more gain than before...
Twin Vib is not supposed to break up with drive=5, right?
Check the global input gain if you're coming from FW13.00I installed 13.02 with no problem, however, my presets suddenly have more gain than before...
Twin Vib is not supposed to break up with drive=5, right?
We never doubted this for one secondI found the problem.
The linker didn't zeroinit an array on the slave core. So in some cases there would be a NaN in there that was causing a NaN in the amp block. The linker does some strange things sometimes. I had to specifically initialize the array to zero (which you shouldn't need to do according to the C standard).Will be interesting to see what it was, since only some were having issues.
Heh heh.....I’ll take your word for it!The linker didn't zeroinit an array on the slave core. So in some cases there would be a NaN in there that was causing a NaN in the amp block. The linker does some strange things sometimes. I had to specifically initialize the array to zero (which you shouldn't need to do according to the C standard).
So the linker command file had allocated the ram for the slave core.The linker didn't zeroinit an array on the slave core. So in some cases there would be a NaN in there that was causing a NaN in the amp block. The linker does some strange things sometimes. I had to specifically initialize the array to zero (which you shouldn't need to do according to the C standard).
The linker didn't zeroinit an array on the slave core. So in some cases there would be a NaN in there that was causing a NaN in the amp block. The linker does some strange things sometimes. I had to specifically initialize the array to zero (which you shouldn't need to do according to the C standard).
And just for the record, that wasn’t near as interesting as I thought is was going to be!The linker didn't zeroinit an array on the slave core. So in some cases there would be a NaN in there that was causing a NaN in the amp block. The linker does some strange things sometimes. I had to specifically initialize the array to zero (which you shouldn't need to do according to the C standard).
It is indeed a linker bug. It happened because the array overflowed from the declared section. The linker should initialize data regardless of whether it has overflowed or not.So the linker command file had allocated the ram for the slave core.
And the slave core is accessible at the time the C init function is called.
If that’s true...that is a linker bug...
Initializing yourself is never a bad idea...
Nasty little linker bug
Do we hold off installing?It is indeed a linker bug. It happened because the array overflowed from the declared section. The linker should initialize data regardless of whether it has overflowed or not.
I spent the morning making sure there were no other cases of this. Nasty little linker bug.
Do we hold off installing?
That was my first thought, too.The linker didn't zeroinit an array on the slave core. So in some cases there would be a NaN in there that was causing a NaN in the amp block. The linker does some strange things sometimes. I had to specifically initialize the array to zero (which you shouldn't need to do according to the C standard).
The linker didn't zeroinit an array on the slave core. So in some cases there would be a NaN in there that was causing a NaN in the amp block. The linker does some strange things sometimes. I had to specifically initialize the array to zero (which you shouldn't need to do according to the C standard).