Re: [cc65] linker config Q

On 2013-01-25, at 13:35, Oliver Schmidt wrote:

>> I mean, I probably would find it more intuitive, at least in the given case, to define one (1) memory area (because in reality it would fully map 1:1 between the entry and the physical MEM then)
> 
> I understand that the name 'memory area' almost automatically leads to
> this perspective. However actually following it doesn't get one far
> when it comes to more complex configs. Seeing memory areas as "segment
> containers" which happen to have a start address allowing the
> contained segments to "work" when the container content happens to be
> placed in RAM at that address is - at least for me - much more
> helpful.
> 
> As soon as segments have both load and run addresses or as soon as
> there's some overlay/banking involved the "naive" memory area "model"
> just doesn't work anymore.

I understand. That's why I didn't think of changing any of the existing capabilities but rather augmenting them for simpler cases.

-- 
SD!----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.