Locating code at a certain address

Extensions such as the _at_ keyword are very useful and appropriate in this environment.

Just because a feature is useful doesn't mean it's a good idea to add it. All the more so if the feature isn't strictly necessary to achieve the goal.

The same functionality you get with the rather limited _at_ feature can be had completely without it. You would put the relevant objects into named sections of their own, and then tell the linker that those sections are to be placed at certain absolute addresses. Done.

With that in mind, _at_ is really just syntactic sugar, and, as Jon pointed out in his reply, it's actually not all that sweet sugar, either.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you insist on a fixed address for your configuration data, that means you put an unmovable obstacle somewhere inside the code memory range. This will result usually in a hole in code space usage, i.e. waste of precious resources --- something I would have guessed would bother you considerably.

Extensions such as the _at_ keyword are very useful and appropriate in this environment.

Just because a feature is useful doesn't mean it's a good idea to add it. All the more so if the feature isn't strictly necessary to achieve the goal.

The same functionality you get with the rather limited _at_ feature can be had completely without it. You would put the relevant objects into named sections of their own, and then tell the linker that those sections are to be placed at certain absolute addresses. Done.

With that in mind, _at_ is really just syntactic sugar, and, as Jon pointed out in his reply, it's actually not all that sweet sugar, either.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you insist on a fixed address for your configuration data, that means you put an unmovable obstacle somewhere inside the code memory range. This will result usually in a hole in code space usage, i.e. waste of precious resources --- something I would have guessed would bother you considerably.