gnupic: Named cblocks?
Subject:
Re: Named cblocks?
From:
Craig Franklin ####@####.####
Date:
17 Mar 2004 03:13:46 +0000
Message-Id: <1079493183.1458.43.camel@r2d2>
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 22:53, David Willmore wrote:
> > If you use relocatable code, data in one section is always in the same
> > bank, so putting in a dummy symbol for the bank switching works.
>
> I haven't tried that, yet, but it might be a good thing to play
> with before long. Once I get out of the 2K word devices, I may
> have actual need for it. As it is, my code compiles faster than
> PikDev can refresh the window, so there would be little benefit--
> unless there is something special about relocatable code that
> isn't obvious.
>
Opinions vary on the subject. Some people are dead set against it,
others aren't. It appears that the people with the most objections tend
to have more experience using absolute mode. They are comfortable and
don't want to change. That's OK.
Recently, there was a thread on this subject on jallist. You can search
through their archive it you want.
In my opinion, here are the advantages (in rough priority):
1. All symbols are local by default. You pick what is global.
2. The code is modular, so it is easier to reuse.
3. The linker manages address(bank/page) assignments, so it should
decrease your workload.
4. Assembling a large project can be faster, because you only assemble
what has changed.
5. In theory, you should be able to link objects generated from
different languages. Although, it hasn't happened yet. There is an
opportunity with sdcc and gpal. The advantage would be sharing a common
library.
Are there ways to get some of these advantages in absolute mode? Yes.
Which method is better? It depends.
> Thank you for the advice, Craig.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>
