This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Keil: Move from BL51 to LX51?

What are the issues in moving from the BL51 Linker to LX51?

Has anyone out there tried it? What were your experiences?

I'd be using it with the Triscend E5 immediately.

Parents
  • Jon
    You wanted an example of lies about the amplitude
    Try \\keil\c51\examples\measure

    A build with BL51 produces a code length of 7037.

    A build with LX51 (linker code packing off) produces a length of 7037.

    A build with LX51 (linker code packing on) produces a length of 6982, and the comment was 7313 reduction 4.6%

    Inspection of the linker lists files is the next step.

    This is describe as a linker optimization but is it? (1)It is enabled in the C51 tab of Options for target. (2)It only seems to work when the source is C, rather than assembler. Could you expand the explanation of this feature.

Reply
  • Jon
    You wanted an example of lies about the amplitude
    Try \\keil\c51\examples\measure

    A build with BL51 produces a code length of 7037.

    A build with LX51 (linker code packing off) produces a length of 7037.

    A build with LX51 (linker code packing on) produces a length of 6982, and the comment was 7313 reduction 4.6%

    Inspection of the linker lists files is the next step.

    This is describe as a linker optimization but is it? (1)It is enabled in the C51 tab of Options for target. (2)It only seems to work when the source is C, rather than assembler. Could you expand the explanation of this feature.

Children
No data