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

Manipulating call tree for data overlay...

Hello.
Is there any way to simplify the call tree manipulation in linker..? (Scripting kind of)
My code has number of function calls through pointers.
The functions are divided in few main groups.
I want to achieve overlay among the functions of an individual group.(Intragroup)
At the same time I want to avoid overlaying among the functions from different groups.(Intergroup)
Adding and removing the references for every function from every other function is big task. I somehow managed it at the moment. However it is not good practice from the long term perspective.

So, can I define a list of functions which can be used at multiple places in linker script.
Or can I share a macro from compiler to the linker..?

Best regards,
Vivek.

Parents
  • Exactly Hans,
    The code has outgrown even the limits of banking.
    Or I would say the limits of flash to be precise.
    The hardware here is a single chip with limited xram and xflash.
    So upgrading it further is not in my control unless there is any such an option from the vendor.
    Hence single fat binary is not possible.

    About the rest of the code being changed.
    No. Its not happening. I guess until my plugins are at assembly level.
    So, there are no common code findings for the linker to do any further optimization and reshuffle.

    The code banking is not a pain.
    Why would it be anyway.
    Without it, probably I wouldn't have reached this far.
    What do you think..?

    Vivek.

Reply
  • Exactly Hans,
    The code has outgrown even the limits of banking.
    Or I would say the limits of flash to be precise.
    The hardware here is a single chip with limited xram and xflash.
    So upgrading it further is not in my control unless there is any such an option from the vendor.
    Hence single fat binary is not possible.

    About the rest of the code being changed.
    No. Its not happening. I guess until my plugins are at assembly level.
    So, there are no common code findings for the linker to do any further optimization and reshuffle.

    The code banking is not a pain.
    Why would it be anyway.
    Without it, probably I wouldn't have reached this far.
    What do you think..?

    Vivek.

Children
No data