From: Groepaz (groepaz_at_gmx.net)
Date: 2000-05-22 23:12:57
> You are right, there is currently no feature to repeat pieces of code and it > would be nice to have one. A .REPEAT pseudo instruction is planned for the > next release, and the token is already reserved in the current development > version. ooh... good to hear ;=) > Well, it is not, what I would expect:-) > > More serious: The linker relocates the code and places it into the given > file(s). For anything else, it needs explicit commands. I don't think, using a > default of "fill=yes" will have any real advantages. It will give larger files > and will also fill the last segment, so the binary file will usually get a lot > larger than needed. > > Maybe this is more a documentation problem. What you expect from the linker is > a result of what you have read about it, so it seems the docs are not clear > enough about the memory layout of the resulting file. I will have a look at it > as soon as I find some time. well, the reason *why* i expected the linker to act like it does when "fill=yes" is, that you can assign a memory adress to a segment. if the linker wont use this value anyway, what should it be good for? like, if it will end up in one clumsy binary anyway, why bother about having segments at all? "fill=no" WOULD make sence incase you would write out the different segments to seperated files and then link them together to a runable c64 exe with some other tool. then again, why using a linker and write out tons of files that you have to link together afterwards to run them... gpz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2001-12-14 22:05:36 CET