gnupic: Thread: Re: [gnupic] Dodgy addresses in LST xref of COD files

Subject: Re: [gnupic] Dodgy addresses in LST xref of COD files
From: Robert Pearce ####@####.####
Date: 25 Apr 2006 09:00:51 +0100
Message-Id: <YLsjoWAqbdTEFwAK@jonah.huneausware.local>

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Robert Pearce ####@####.#### wrote :
>
>What I find is that for _some_ of these cases, when linked, the 
>generated COD file declares some lines wrongly in the list file 
>cross-reference.

OK, I fetched the source and had a grub around. Here is a patch that 
fixes this. I've checked it produces identical .hex .map and .lst files, 
and the only .cod difference is that the addresses are now right.

-- 
Rob Pearce                       http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk

The contents of this | Everyone wants results, but no one is willing to do
message are purely   | what it takes to get them.
my opinion. Don't    |  -- Dirty Harry
believe a word.      |

[Content type application/octet-stream not shown. Download]

Subject: Re: [gnupic] Dodgy addresses in LST xref of COD files
From: Scott Dattalo ####@####.####
Date: 26 Apr 2006 17:54:58 +0100
Message-Id: <444FA5DC.1090402@dattalo.com>

Robert Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Robert Pearce ####@####.#### wrote :
> 
>>
>> What I find is that for _some_ of these cases, when linked, the 
>> generated COD file declares some lines wrongly in the list file 
>> cross-reference.
> 
> 
> OK, I fetched the source and had a grub around. Here is a patch that 
> fixes this. I've checked it produces identical .hex .map and .lst files, 
> and the only .cod difference is that the addresses are now right.

Hi Robert,

I'm not sure if Craig has seen this message or not. But if we don't hear 
from him by this weekend, then I'll commit your patch to gputils.

Scott

Subject: Re: [gnupic] Dodgy addresses in LST xref of COD files
From: "Scott Dattalo" ####@####.####
Date: 29 Apr 2006 18:03:05 +0100
Message-Id: <62865.71.139.22.22.1146330178.squirrel@ruckus.brouhaha.com>

I wrote:

> I'm not sure if Craig has seen this message or not. But if we don't hear
> from him by this weekend, then I'll commit your patch to gputils.

Well, 'this weekend' is here and I haven't heard from Craig.
Unfortunately, CVS is *still* down. It's only been a month, so I guess I
shouldn't complain... Sigh.

Anyway, I can't commit your patch Robert.

Maybe gputils should move over to SVN too?

Scott

Subject: Re: [gnupic] Dodgy addresses in LST xref of COD files
From: Nicolas ####@####.####
Date: 29 Apr 2006 18:13:16 +0100
Message-Id: <92d8b98a0604291013v514aec26sd21bc6faa23ac7ee@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/29/06, Scott Dattalo ####@####.#### wrote:
> Well, 'this weekend' is here and I haven't heard from Craig.
> Unfortunately, CVS is *still* down. It's only been a month, so I guess I
> shouldn't complain... Sigh.
>
> Anyway, I can't commit your patch Robert.
>
> Maybe gputils should move over to SVN too?

I did the move for Piklab and never looked back. SVN makes it much
easier to move, rename and copy files or directories and on
sourceforge, anonymous svn and web svn are synchronized with
developper svn... so much better.

Nicolas