gnupic: Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress


Previous by date: 20 Jan 2006 08:59:00 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Chen Xiao Fan
Next by date: 20 Jan 2006 08:59:00 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Xiaofan Chen
Previous in thread: 20 Jan 2006 08:59:00 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Chen Xiao Fan
Next in thread: 20 Jan 2006 08:59:00 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Xiaofan Chen

Subject: Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress
From: Michael Ballbach ####@####.####
Date: 20 Jan 2006 08:59:00 +0000
Message-Id: <20060120085857.GA27385@wayreth.rten.net>

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 04:36:24PM +0800, Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> Now it is a bit strange and it seems I need to test MPLAB 7.30 later.
> The good thing is that it seems the gpasm patch is working for the
> relocatable mode code (the default and the 00 filling byte are both
> working). 

What MPLAB is doing, afaict, in relocatable mode, is that it creates a
section in the object file for each address byte, and does not fill in
defaults for the other bytes. The only reason I can immediately think of
for this is to support CONFIG directives spread across multiple ASM
files as long as they write to separate addresses. This accounts for
why, in relocatable mode, even if you specify a value for every CONFIG
directive, they're broken into separate lines in the HEX file (it breaks
lines on section boundaries).

This is harder to do in GPASM since it would require writing 1 byte
sections.

In absolute mode, it makes a section per contiguous range of
configuration addresses and just fills it with defaults or specified
values, since it knows you wont be specifying CONFIG directives anywhere
else.

I've not confirmed all of this experimentally, but it's my current
thinking.  I'll have to try mixing CONFIG directives through multiple
ASM files in MPASM and see what it does. My gut feeling is that if it
allows it, it will be non-trivial to make work in GPASM, but I'm still
pretty new to the code base.

I just gpvo'd an object file with a bunch of CONFIG directives in it and
it did look like it had a section per CONFIG address. You may need my
newcoff patch on the website to view such coff files, since they have 1
byte sections (the patch will pad it out to a word so that it gets
displayed).

Thanks for your help.

-- 
Michael Ballbach, N0ZTQ
####@####.#### -- PGP KeyID: 0xA05D5555
http://www.rten.net/

[Content type application/pgp-signature not shown. Download]

Previous by date: 20 Jan 2006 08:59:00 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Chen Xiao Fan
Next by date: 20 Jan 2006 08:59:00 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Xiaofan Chen
Previous in thread: 20 Jan 2006 08:59:00 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Chen Xiao Fan
Next in thread: 20 Jan 2006 08:59:00 +0000 Re: [gnupic] Re: [PATCH] CONFIG feature progress, Xiaofan Chen


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.