Hi Karri, > Mixing this like > > RWCODE and CODE > DATA and RODATA > > is not very logical. There is data and code, both have an implied "accessing" type -- which happens to be different. And the segment for the same kind of data but with a different and "atypical" type gets a type prefix. Sounds logical to me. > Personally I would prefer to have just two segments. > > CODE(ro) and DATA(rw) > > So all smc would go to DATA and everything currently in RODATA would > go to CODE. I personally like that there is no mix of code and data in the binary. Makes it easier do debug when you disassemble it in a monitor for example -- when the disassembly is not interspersed with data blobs which don't make sense and may even mess up the start of the next code piece. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch -- “If Microsoft is the solution, I want my problem back.” ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2011-02-09 11:19:45 CET