From: groepaz (groepaz_at_gmx.net)
Date: 2002-07-18 21:36:05
Hello Ullrich, Thursday, July 18, 2002, 9:19:45 PM, you wrote: UvB> other compiler packages need when doing alignment (groepaz is right when he UvB> says that gas can do alignment, he forgot to tell that segments are aligned at UvB> 16 byte addresses for DOS and at full memory pages for most other operating UvB> systems, so gas has the needed prerequisites). well, so what? align sections to 2 byte boundaries (kills indirect jump problem for eg) then for a start (we can live with those 3 bytes wasted in typical c program then ;=)) other than that, i am using gcc with the gba, the gp32, the psx etc blabla and i can very well place binaries whereever i want and alignment works just fine (i am not saying that the linker wouldnt simply always align to a certain common denominator, if thats the only way it works, so be it) UvB> If someone thinks that ca65 is doing something wrong, please try first to UvB> understand how alignment is currently implemented and then tell me why you UvB> cannot live with that. Until someone comes up with a real good reason why the UvB> current implementation is unusable, I would prefer not to waste any more time UvB> on this discussion. certain stuff, such as routines that are heavily optimized for speed - or even the indirect jump thingy - just _need_ properly working alignment. as simple as that :o) as its now, any of these routines are useless in a typical c-program, just because it loads to an odd adress. thats just plain whacked :o] -- Best regards, groepaz mailto:groepaz_at_gmx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 : 2002-07-18 21:36:18 CEST