From: Greg King (gngking_at_erols.com)
Date: 2003-04-25 11:07:13
From: Ullrich von Bassewitz Date: Thursday, April 24, 2003, 12:19 PM > > On Thu., Apr. 24, 2003, at 07:35:26AM -0400, Greg King wrote: > > You just need to expand that idea, when you design the libraries for > > machines that have separated blocks of memory. Give the stack and the > > heap their own "STACK:" and "HEAP:" memory-area definitions. > > This is the part that doesn't work, and why I talked about having > expression-evaluation in the linker-scripts: You cannot use a separate > memory-area for the heap, because this memory-area must start where > the program ends. I wasn't talking about the libraries/configurations that already have been written. I was talking about "new" configurations for the machines that you mentioned, and the special requirements that Shawn described. That is: there are several blocks of RAM -- which might sit "far apart" from each other. None of the blocks might be big enough to hold everything that the program uses (code and data, plus static-, dynamic-, and automatic-variables). We would need to put some of those objects into other RAM-blocks. The heap (dynamic-) and the stack (automatic-) can be two of those moved objects. The heap doesn't need to be placed next to the end of the program; it could have its own totally independent place -- anywhere in a machine's memory-map! (It's used for dynamic memory, but it can have a fixed location, and a fixed size.) My comments were meant to remind everyone that we already can create that kind of configuration. We don't need to wait for upgrades to the linker. The addresses of the RAM-blocks would be known constants -- expressions aren't needed in the linker-scripts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 : 2003-04-25 11:35:29 CEST