Hi! On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:26:11AM +0100, Gábor Lénárt wrote: > Ehm, it seems you haven't got my point (which can be because of my > not-so-good English): I agree with the usage of segments, that we have > many of them, and not only - let's say - two: for example "RAM" and > "ROM" (for ROMable). That's exactly why I wrote that I like we have > more "fine tuned" segment purposes (and names), that's why I think > it's not so good to place smc into DATA. It would be much more logical > to create one new segment for this, let's say RWCODE. Sorry for getting you wrong. Since RWCODE or something similar serves no real purpose besides a structural one, and since existing self modifying code is in DATA without anyone complaining for about 10 years, I've voted for DATA. But I'm not against a separate segment, so if the majority is for RWCODE that is ok with me. 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 Tue Feb 8 21:40:40 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2011-02-08 21:40:42 CET