On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:10:23AM -0800, Winslow, Dan D (US SSA) wrote: > The CC65 documentation mentions a .o65 relocation format, and that 'the > assembler produces relocatable object files'. I don't see any option for > producing .o65 files, and I was wondering if that format is the same as > the .o file format. No. The .o files output by the assembler are not the same as the .o65 format. The latter was developed by Andre Fachat with native relocation in mind. See here for the specs: http://www.6502.org/users/andre/o65/fileformat.html .o65 files can be generated by the linker ld65. > Also, if it is not the same format, is there a > structural description of the .o files available? My goal is to be able > to use/write a relocating loader ( maybe like mod_load in the library > sources? ) that will allow me to do run-time relocation of object > files. Unlike the o65 format, the internal object file format was never designed to be handled by a memory contrained 8-bit CPU. The files support anything the assembler does: Complete expression trees, assertions, segments, some sort of debug information and so on. In addition, the format has changed over time and this may happen again. The od65 utility is able to peek into the internals. My suggestion would be to use the .o65 format. I would even suggest to use mod_load if possible for your purposes, because it's highly optimized (and still ~500 Bytes in size). It doesn't have all o65 features, like symbol relocation, but this would increase code size even more. Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Thu Feb 5 20:59:01 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2009-02-05 20:59:02 CET