<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://community.arm.com/utility/feedstylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>BL51 command line error with OVERLAY directive</title><link>https://community.arm.com/developer/tools-software/tools/f/keil-forum/26271/bl51-command-line-error-with-overlay-directive</link><description> 
Hi all, I am trying to craft a (somewhat) complicated OVERLAY
directive for the BL51.exe linker. Basically, the situation is this:
I have one function that I am trying to add to the call tree, because
it may get called in the future through function</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Community 10</generator><item><title>RE: BL51 command line error with OVERLAY directive</title><link>https://community.arm.com/thread/119105?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 23:05:55 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">dd9e70c8-6d3c-4c71-b136-2456382a7b5c:603c94cc-f667-41a1-b1f3-055423ff3511</guid><dc:creator>Andy Neil</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
should be &lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;s&lt;b&gt;t&lt;/b&gt;icking&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;, of course!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>RE: BL51 command line error with OVERLAY directive</title><link>https://community.arm.com/thread/116144?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:42:47 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">dd9e70c8-6d3c-4c71-b136-2456382a7b5c:a35e1fee-8776-495f-a254-dbc73ac77753</guid><dc:creator>Scott Armitage</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;sicking it in the initaliser of a table might do the
trick...&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
That&amp;#39;s what I&amp;#39;m thinking. Will lose a couple extra bytes of flash
(not a big deal), and a couple cycles on boot (also not a big deal),
will just have to make sure I document it well =P&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>RE: BL51 command line error with OVERLAY directive</title><link>https://community.arm.com/thread/104419?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:26:50 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">dd9e70c8-6d3c-4c71-b136-2456382a7b5c:5800f944-cbaf-42d7-8d99-4a17c3af6ef0</guid><dc:creator>Andy Neil</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Fair enough.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;have to come up with a way to &amp;#39;trick&amp;#39; it into resolving one of
the issues using the code itself&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
sicking it in the initaliser of a table might do the trick...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>RE: BL51 command line error with OVERLAY directive</title><link>https://community.arm.com/thread/78843?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 07:20:03 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">dd9e70c8-6d3c-4c71-b136-2456382a7b5c:cf561aac-885e-4853-a47a-d9bba0643ae0</guid><dc:creator>Scott Armitage</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;So this is not actually a problem at the moment, but may become
so in the future?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
No, the problem is now.. the base code that I am compiling will
live on the device forever (there will be no way to modify this code
in the future), while other code may be added remotely. There is
nothing in the current code that calls this particular function,
however it is functionality that needs to be exposed for the future
added code.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;You are basically fighting a fundamental limitation of the
architecture here - so, rather than planning to fight the
architecture, why not plan to switch to a more appropriate
architecture?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
The reasons are numerous and diverse, but suffice to say that it
is not an option (if it helps you sleep at night, consider it a
management decision and/or programmatic requirement).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
It doesn&amp;#39;t seem like I&amp;#39;m fighting the architecture &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt;
hard.. I have two independent issues, both of which have solutions
provided explicitly in the Keil toolchain user guides. My issues even
match up with their example use cases. It&amp;#39;s just that I have both of
them happening in the same program, and I can&amp;#39;t get the syntax of the
command right (maybe the linker isn&amp;#39;t designed to be able to handle
multiple cases, in which case I&amp;#39;ll have to come up with a way to
&amp;quot;trick&amp;quot; it into resolving one of the issues using the code
itself).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>RE: BL51 command line error with OVERLAY directive</title><link>https://community.arm.com/thread/66069?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 00:52:41 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">dd9e70c8-6d3c-4c71-b136-2456382a7b5c:78d4b07b-5e8e-4d05-970e-b0d19be10896</guid><dc:creator>Andy Neil</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;... because it may get called in the future through function
pointers&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
So this is not actually a problem at the moment, but may become so
in the future?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
You are basically fighting a fundamental limitation of the
architecture here - so, rather than planning to fight the
architecture, why not plan to switch to a more appropriate
architecture?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>