Re: [cc65] .global vs .export vs what i really need :)

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Groepaz wrote:
> > The solution is probably simple: Don't use scopes. The names of your
> > symbols seem to be choosen to be distinct anyway, so there's no real need
> > to enclose each one in it's own scope. Your example without scopes:
>
> thats not an option. it's compiler generated code, which uses scopes, and i
> cant do anything about it. i could remove them from the patterns that i
> generate myself, but that doesnt really change anything (and removing them
> would sometimes break other stuff). i must be able to "export" a symbol from
> within a scope to global namespace, so i can make forward references to it.

I'm sorry, this is not possible. If you have the code in an intermediate form,
you may be able to rewrite it without scopes, but that is the only idea I
have for now.

> so i still say whats needed is a pseudoop that works just like export, but
> doesnt actually mark the symbol as exported. shouldnt be hard to add at
> all :)

I'm sorry, but I'm not able to fulfill everybodies wishes. I have to discuss
tgi drivers, write line clipping code, fix bugs, discuss commit policies,
update web pages, have discussions why web pages arent't updated, add
dependency generation to the assembler, improve code generation of the
compiler, discuss code generation issues, discuss platform library
improvements, and do quite some other things. There's actually a limit to what
I can do :-)

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.