Re: [cc65] Secondary linker configurations

From: Oliver Schmidt <>
Date: 2009-09-25 10:03:09

>> If your conio implementations are contained within one file (for example,
>> because all they replace is putchar), they would definitely qualify for
>> this approach. If they're contained in multiple modules, this becomes too
>> complex, and I would rather suggest adding them as a project to the cc65
>> contrib section.

> the replace several modules, just putchar isnt enough. clrscr is another, an
> init call is needed too (in a constructor) since the 80 colums one uses hires
> mode, and a few more (dont recall exactly). mmmh

Just my two cents...

I see two primary reasons for distributing code into modules:
a) Allow the linker to only link in what is actually needed
b) Source code maintainance

Regarding a): AFAIK Object files placed on the linker comdline are
always linked in regardless of being used or not. So from that
perspective there's no benefit in several modules for 'extra' code
that logically belongs together.

Regarding b): A "master" source file containing just some '.include'
assembler control commands can allow to keep the actual source code
distributed in files.

Obviously this only makes sense if the code in question isn't that
large and/or it can presumed that using some of if more or less
implies using all/most of it...

Best, Oliver
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Fri Sep 25 10:03:17 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2009-09-25 10:03:19 CEST