On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:47:13AM -0500, Greg King wrote: > Some headers/trailers don't have any addresses in them that need to be > relocated. Therefore, any random start-address would work just as well > as any other address. There are situations where a programmer wouldn't > care what the start address is; and, he wouldn't care about size-checks. > He doesn't want to be forced to name things that are totally irrelevant > to him. There are values that are obvious defaults for those > attributes: If "start=" isn't there, then it would default to zero. If > "size=" isn't there, then it would default to the host compiler's > maximum unsigned int value. While it is theoretically possible to construct a case where a memory area doesn't have relocatable data placed into it, this is quite rare. I don't think that it's the case with any of the existing C targets. Making "start" and "size" optional just for such a case and having errors going unnoticed in all others is a bad idea. What's the big deal with saying "start=0 size=0x10000" if you don't need it? > > > Since the non-loading file sections have no place in the o65 format, > > > it seems you would need some such method to identify them. > > > > Not sure what you mean with that, either. > > He's talking about the headers and trailers (they're read, but not > loaded into memory). If so, it's a misunderstanding. The MEMORY section is not about what's getting loaded. It is used to place code and data into memory (assign an address to it). 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 Nov 11 15:24:01 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2010-11-11 15:24:04 CET