From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2002-05-22 21:13:53
Hi!
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 07:17:57PM +0200, groepaz wrote:
> in in essence what i want to say is, the allocated memory block
> shouldnt need to be one continues chunk (should be trivial to make the
> linker sort the symbols by size and let it choose the best place for
> them - ofcoz the largest continous block will limit your max. size of
> symbols and to many locked locations would make a section hardly
> useable, thats however up to the user then ;=))
Unfortunately, the linker doesn't know anything about sizes, so the auto-sort
feature is not doable at the moment...
> however, the linker could still place symbols that wont fit in
> zeropage in .bss automagically (should issue a warning though) .... OR
> it may be better to define a "common" section in the linkerscript
> simelar to whats done in gcc (all symbols that "dont fit" otherwhise
> go there)
...and this one would require that the linker rewrites the code generated by
the compiler/assembler. A variable that is used in any zero page addressing
mode cannot be moved to an absolute segment without changes to the code.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 : 2002-05-22 21:13:52 CEST