We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
The compiler has placed gv_CFI in ZI (.bss) and the '#pragma arm section rwdata=...' does not affect it (because it's ZI not RW). The other four have been placed in RW (because they are small) and are affected by the #pragma. You'll probably find it easier to use __attribute__((section("..."))) instead of '#pragma arm section ...' for controlling data sections; see the manual [url="http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.dui0491a/Caccache.html"]infocenter.arm.com/.../url].Searching the infocenter.arm.com Knowledgebase Articles also turns up [url="http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.faqs/ka3947.html"]infocenter.arm.com/.../url]
#pragma arm section rwdata ="cellular_ram"u8 gv_CFI[256]={0};/* MAN ID DID1,DID2,DID3*/u16 gv_DIDR;...#pragma arm section rwdata[...]I want to put gv_CFI and the ohter 4 u16 var together in a fix place.But, after link finished. I check the MAP file. I found this:[color="#FF0000"] gv_CFI 0xa802fe58 Data 128 init.ptl(.bss) [/color] gv_DIDR 0xa01ff000 Data 2 init.ptl(cellular_ram) ...the gv_CFI is placed wrong.....How can I deal with this ? Why the linker split it from the other four? They are all .bss. why??
#pragma arm section rwdata ="cellular_ram"u8 gv_CFI[256]={0};/* MAN ID DID1,DID2,DID3*/u16 gv_DIDR;...#pragma arm section rwdata
Build 821 has the same prb.
I want to put gv_CFI and the ohter 4 u16 var together in a fix place.