From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2003-01-09 12:17:52
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:37:34AM +0100, Groepaz wrote:
> however what i ment to "fix" is, that the machine _independent_ parts of the
> runtime library should be _always_ linked, even when the none-target is
> choosen. if that is not the case, the none-target is pretty much useless,
> since you cannot get any output at all, without fiddling with compiling your
> one "none.lib" (which can be done easily btw)
So what exactly do you expect none.lib and none.o look like? For the former,
this is more or less clear, however, many things will not work because machine
dependent things will be missing. But how should the latter look to be usable?
And what about the linker config? It assumes that the whole address space can
be used by the compiled program; an assumption that is invalid for most real
machines.
What I fear is that once a real "none" target exists, people start complaining
that it is totally useless for real hardware. And IMHO they are right about it.
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 : 2003-01-09 12:18:59 CET